On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:52:10AM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 05:49:23PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:00:27PM +0300, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 12:57:54PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:48:08PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 11:45:25AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: ... > > > > > I do not understand why we pollute Git history with changelogs, but it's > > > > > probably the ugly atavism in DRM workflow. > > > > > > > > I never liked it! Besides it should even be against the > > > > submitting patches recommendation. > > > > > > > > I don't understand what interest might have someone in a couple > > > > of years, reading this commit, knowing an unintellegible list of > > > > differences between v2 and v3. > > > > > > > > I consider it a random pollution of the commit log. > > > > I agree it is ugly. But I don't agree it is just a 'random polution'. > > > > I consider a valid and very useful information of the patch history. > > Very useful for a later cross check to know what exactly version > > of that patch got merged. > > Useful for distros on backports as well. > > Isn't this why we have 'Link' as part of commit which points to > actual ML submission? > > > > Isn't it already documented? > > > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > > > I think it is: > > > > "Be sure to tell the reviewers what changes you are making and to thank them > > for their time. Code review is a tiring and time-consuming process, and > > reviewers sometimes get grumpy. Even in that case, though, respond > > politely and address the problems they have pointed out. When sending a next > > version, add a ``patch changelog`` to the cover letter or to individual patches > > explaining difference against previous submission > > " > > > > Then: > > > > ''' > > Example of a patch submitted by the From: author:: > > ''' > > > > defines 'changelog' as the block above the signatures. > > > > And > > > > 'The canonical patch format' > > > > also tells that anything after '---' marker line is for > > "Any additional comments not suitable for the changelog." > > > > But well, the important part is to have the version information > > available for reviewers. > > Can still be available below '---' marker. +1 to what Raag said. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
