Hi Randy,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:00 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/13/19 4:48 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> So I'm expecting to take this kind of stuff into Documentation/. My own
> >> personal hope is that it can maybe serve to shame some of these "local
> >> quirks" out of existence. The evidence from this brief discussion suggests
> >> that this might indeed happen.
> >
> > I don't think it's shaming, I think it's validating. Everyone just
> > insists that since it's written in the Book of Rules then it's our fault
> > for not reading it. It's like those EULA things where there is more
> > text than anyone can physically read in a life time.
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
> > And the documentation doesn't help. For example, I knew people's rules
> > about capitalizing the subject but I'd just forget. I say that if you
> > can't be bothered to add it to checkpatch then it means you don't really
> > care that strongly.
>
> If a subsystem requires a certain spelling/capitalization in patch email
> subjects, it should be added to MAINTAINERS IMO. E.g.,
> E: NuBus
Oh, I understood the question differently. I thought it was about
"sub: system: Fix foo" vs. "sub: system: fix foo".
For simple and trivial things, I tend to make changes while applying, as that's
usually less work than complaining, and verifying that it's been fixed in the
next (if any) version n days/weeks/months later.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
