The change adds a basic formal rule for developers about how to format subject and commit message of reverted changes. The rule is based on discussion from http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg75667.html : RMK> I think it's sensible to keep at least the summary line RMK> of a 'git revert' intact rather than inventing our own. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@xxxxxxxxx> --- The motivation of this change is to avoid ambiguity and discussions of the format of reverted changes in future, an example of such a discussion is found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/24/536 On practice only a statistically minor number of accepted reverted changes has its own duplicated subsystem designator. Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index 8c79f1d..4fff51b 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -670,6 +670,14 @@ that developers understand the order in which the patches should be applied and that they have reviewed or applied all of the patches in the patch series. +In case if a patch is generated by 'git revert' of some original +change, the subject should not be edited and it should look like +'Revert "original summary phrase"', target original subsystem can be +taken from the original summary phrase, also the commit ID of +the original change must be specified above the commit text message: + + "This reverts commit <sha1>". + A couple of example Subjects: Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching -- 2.1.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
