On 1.6.2010 17:32, Linus Torvalds wrote: > No, the commits themselves are likely fine, although for the future it > really would be good to make things like that more descriptive. I just > want people to try to argue for _why_ I should do a pull, and _what_ I'm > getting in their "please pull" thing. > > It's not always necessary, and some people do it better than others. For > an example of a really good pull request, look at the ones David Miller > sends me for networking - they explain what's going on in the pull, so > it's always easy to pull them because just the request makes me feel like > David is really on top of things, and lets me have some 30'000 ft overview > of what's going on. OK, I'll try to do better job next time. I'm also going to use different branches for kbuild / kconfig / trivial stuff like .gitignore / etc from now on, so that you don't get a all-or-nothing pull request in the next merge window (something that Sam suggested). > At the same time, in many cases I obviously pull _without_ any kind of > real explanation - and that tends to be especially true with maintainers > that I've worked with for a long time, or areas that are so specialized > that they are almost self-explanatory (let's be honest: when a filesystem > maintainer asks me to pull their special filesystem, I'm perfectly happy > with the overview of "30 changesets to XFS", and there's no need for much > explanation, although a rough overview of what's been going on is always > good to see). > > So the reason I ask for explanations for kbuild is that not only have we > had different maintainers, it's an area that affects a lot of different > things and has historically had issues with odd architectures or old > binutils tools etc. I see. Thanks a lot for pulling the changes now. Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
