> > > The changelog sucks. What is the effect of this change? Why don't > > > we just delete the function instead? > > > > It is an API example so I don't want to remove this function I > > believe it show the usage in proper place, yes it also eliminates A > > compilation warning. > > > > Maybe the proper way would be to add API declaration section but I'm > > not sure it'll add anything more descriptive. > > > > The subject says "make all function static" and the changelog says it's to > "remove compile warnings". So I was thinking, "Hm. > Probably he meant Sparse warnings, not compile warnings." But then I saw > the patch introduced a new function call. And I'm thinking wtf? The changelog says 'static and __used__' , so it's not like I didn't comment on it, but probably should be more verbose about it. > > One thing that would help and which is a standard is that when you are fixing > compile warnings, put a copy of the warning into the changelog. Right, just didn't have the exact warning at hand on the machine I send the patches from, it is produced only with recent gcc versions I assumed it's pretty clear what warning it can produce...well... > > I don't like to complain about grammar and spelling issues in changelogs, > because it's a second language for so many people. But your English in emails > is very good with proper capitalization and everything. Could you try writing > better changelogs? Spelling is easy it's done by any contemporary email editor :) I will think of better changlog. Tomas _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
