linux-kernel - Re: A contradiction of "summary phrase" definition in process/submitting-patches.rst

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87h639e3ki.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:23:57 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Integral <integral@...hlinuxcn.org>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 ziyao@...root.org, integral@...hlinuxcn.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A contradiction of "summary phrase" definition in
 process/submitting-patches.rst

Integral <integral@...hlinuxcn.org> writes:

> I found a contradiction in process/submitting-patches.rst:
>
> The canonical patch subject line is::
>      Subject: [PATCH 001/123] subsystem: summary phrase
>
> The ``summary phrase`` may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square
> brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>".
>
> The former means "summary phrase" doesn't include "subsystem", while the 
> latter means "summary phrase" includes "subsystem".
>
> So, which one is correct?

I honestly don't see the contradiction here; the summary phrase is as
described here; the subsystem indicator is part of it.

When in doubt, look at the commits in the subsystem you are interested
in, and you will see the expected pattern quickly enough.

Thanks,

jon