On Friday 23 October 2015 20:19:46 Pingbo Wen wrote: > > > Also, we don't normally have enumerated lists in a changelog, just use > > normal text. The best changelogs typically have three paragraphs: > > > > The first paragraph describes what the driver currently does. For really > > obvious cases, this can be combined with the second paragraph. > > > > The second paragraph explains why that is bad. This is where you can > > mention the monotonic time vs real time issue and say whether we > > just want the timeval removed to fix the kernel in general or whether > > this particular driver is broken. > > > > The third paragraph explains what the patch does to resolve the issue > > described in the second one. This is also where you can list other > > approaches that would have solved the problem, and why you picked on > > over the others. > > Do we really need this in ChangeLog? Commit msg already states this. I think > the purpose of ChangeLog is let people know the main difference of two > version patch at a glance, and the ‘what’ and ‘why’ should be placed in > commit msg. > I was using the terms changelog and commit message interchangeably, sorry for being unclear. I meant the part above the --- line. The revision history you have below the --- line looks good here. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
