On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:32:25AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:08:33AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:25:16AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > The patch looks fine to me, and I'm also fine with merging it ASAP. > > > But the patch subject and commit message are not very descriptive. > > > > How is the commit message not descriptive? The first sentence > > summarises exactly what the change does. The last says why it > > is required. In the middle are some details. > > foo change is about as useless as a subject could be. > > "fs: idempotent d_delete" from your old tree was much better. It's not only idempotent, though, so I thought it was better to change it. Seeing as the change could not be summarised in a changelog, at least the ambiguous subject would draw the reader to look at the changelog. > As far as the commit message is concerned I think the most important > bit is that we do not call it from prune_one_dentry anymore, which is > the things that might matter to any complex filesystem maintainer > looking at the changelog. See: first sentence of the changelog. > The other things I didn't like was the introductionary blurb, but from > reading the answer to the previous comment is seems like that wsn't > intentional anyway. Right, I'll switch to a different way of commenting that git-am does not pick up. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
