On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:27:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > >> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around. > > > > > > Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example: > > > > What's the, uh, diff between those to consider? > > Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added, > the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches > cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label, > surroundng context, and/or line numbers. Yeah that's an annoying sucker but I guess just part of the fail. Imo consistency wins this bikeshed ;-) > I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied > patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar. Diff doesn't look at the heading after the @@ but only at concept. And when applying with some mismatches that can end up in really surprising places. Chaning how we place labels won't help. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
