On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:36:29PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:06:55AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Reverts shouldn't be special - they're just regular patches and should > > have sensible changelogs like any others. > Stating that you're reverting a commit and which commit that is is in > the summary is arguable sensible (of course, you still also need further > details in the commit message body itself describing why it was needed). > Check the logs and you'll see that we have a ton of "Revert <reverted > commit summary>" for various subsystems. In fact, it seems to be by far > the most common summary for direct reverts. The easily findable ones are, and it doesn't mean it's good practice - reverts seem to attract particularly bad commit messages in general, not just the subject lines, and I happen to have a pre-canned response for this so...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
