On 2017-09-25 17:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please >> add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic >> "The canonical patch format"? > > A patch should provide the answer to 3 questions: what?, why?, and how?, > and IMHO all of these have been answered. > What more can I say, besides duplicating the one-line summary? > >> Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and >> I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry... > > Are they? AFAIK only if they apply patches that need more explanation. There was an LWN article a while back that counted the number of patches with an empty body and presented a table with top "offenders". But ok, I'll just fix it up myself as I apply it. Hopefully w/o adding any further speeling mitsaeks..,. Cheers, Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
