On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:19 PM Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> If I get stuff that looks at all complex at the end of the merge >> window, I will just cackle unpleasantly while I press the big 'D' key >> on my keyboard. > > Side note: looking at what I just pulled, there was close to a D key here too. > > Dammit, the top commit in your tree is a merge. And the merge message > for that merge is this: > > Merge branch 'for-4.18/mcsafe' into libnvdimm-for-next > > That's it. One line. That doesn't say anything at all. > > That kind of uninformative commit message wouldn't be remotely > acceptable for a regular simple one-liner patch. > > WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO THINK THAT IT'S OK FOR MERGES? > > Dammit. Merges are *more* complex than random usual patches. They need > proper commit messages. Yet you have two merges there with absolutely > *no* information in the commit message. > > If you can't be bothered to write an informative commit message for a > merge, you damn well shouldn't do the merge. > > It really is that simple. Well, crap. I've been doing it the wrong way for a while. Do you have a preference for more pull requests or just splitting what is now a top level tag message into a summary changelog per branch when I merge the ready branches for the merge window? I had been assuming that the arrangement you have with Ingo / Thomas to pull individual topics was a privilege for the tip tree and not necessarily something everyone that sends you pulls should be doing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
