On 09/12/2013 04:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, September 12, 2013 12:42:29 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> On 09/12/2013 12:14 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 12 September 2013 12:00, Srivatsa S. Bhat >>> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Looking at the rate at which we are bumping into each others thoughts, I think >>>> maybe we should switch from email to IRC ;-) ;-) >>> >>> Unbelievable, Even I thought so this morning :) >>> >>> One more thing that I wanted to say for some other threads.. >>> Your changelogs are simply superb.. The amount of information that you put in >>> them is fantastic.. >> >> Thank you! :-) I'm glad to hear that! >> >> Believe it or not, I spend almost an equal (if not more) amount of time ensuring >> that I get the changelog absolutely right, compared to the time I spend actually >> writing the code. The reason is that, I have been pleasantly surprised by the >> power of the changelog in numerous occasions: the very act of composing a proper >> changelog forces me to think *much* more clearly than when writing code. And it >> often gives me the opportunity to rethink the *entire* approach/solution and not >> just the implementation, since I need to explain the full context in it, not >> just what the code does. And *that* exercise can reveal more complex/subtle bugs >> than mere code review can ever do. That's why I put so much emphasis on writing >> a perfect changelog :-) [Believe it or not, I have had times when I figured out >> that my entire solution was utterly nonsensical when I began writing the changelog, >> *after* reviewing and testing the code! ... and of course I had to rework the >> entire patch! ;-( ] >> >> And to prevent myself from going overboard with writing the changelog (like making >> it way too verbose or convoluted with too much detail), I have a simple mechanism/ >> handy rule in place: >> >> The changelog should be such that, whoever reads the changelog should feel that >> the time he spent reading it was totally worth it. IOW, it should not simply >> regurgitate what is already obvious from the code. Instead it should provide >> insights into the subtle aspects or tradeoffs relevant to the patch; in short, it >> should explain the "_why_ behind the _what_" as clearly and in as few words as >> possible :-) >> >> Well, atleast I _try_ to stick to that rule :-) > > Can you please prepare a patch against Documentation/SubmittingPatches with the > above paragraph in it? Seriously. > Sure, I'd be delighted to :-) > There are people who don't really see a reason for writing good patch > changelogs. > Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
