On Mon, Nov 07, 2022, David Matlack wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 8:49 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Anyways, if someone wants to pursue this, these ideas and the "requirement" should > > be run by the checkpatch maintainers. They have far more experience and authority > > in this area, and I suspect we aren't the first people to want checkpatch to get > > involved in enforcing shortlog scope. > > Documenting would at least be an improvement over what we have today > since it would eliminate the need to re-explain the preferred rules > every time. We can just point to the documentation when reviewing > patches. Agreed. And there are many other things I want to formalize for KVM x86, e.g. testing expectations, health requirements for the various branches, what each branch is used for etc... If you want to send a patch for the shortlogs thing, maybe create Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst and link it into Documentation/process/maintainer-handbooks.rst? > `git log --pretty=oneline` is not a great way to document shortlog > scopes because it does not explain the rules (e.g. when to use "KVM: > x86: " vs "KVM: x86/mmu: "), does not explain why things the way they > are, and is inconsistent since we don't always catch every patch that > goes by with a non-preferred shortlog scope.
