>> I got the impression that further possibilities can be taken better into account
>> also for improved change descriptions.
>
> Thanks Markus, I appreciate you feel you have a real point here,
> I'm just not getting it.
I hope that remaining communication difficulties can be resolved somehow.
> Perhaps you can write a commit message that fulfils requirements
Let us take another look.
> like being in the correct "imperative mood"
You chose some imperative wordings already for other changes
while the description for this update step is still improvable.
> and I will learn and improve.
I hope also that further contributors and patch reviewers will “get into the mood”
to share any additional ideas for more desirable change descriptions.
How do you think about a wording approach like the following?
Token specifications were adjusted by the commit 70c90e4a6b2fbe775b662eafefae51f64d627790
("perf parse-events: Avoid scanning PMUs before parsing").
It was noticed that the token “PE_PMU_EVENT_FAKE” was not so useful any more.
Thus delete its usage here.
Regards,
Markus
