* Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Furthermore, the changelog is bad (non-exiting in fact). > >> > >> The fact that the issues where discovered using checkpatch is absolutely > >> uninteresting. The changelog should describe /what/ is fixed, [...] > > > > The commit log definitely needs enhancements but it's not uninteresting > > at all what tools were used to arrive to a change. [...] if a > > good and acceptable commit results out of a tool's usage then that tool > > needs to be advertised some more.) > > Fine, then the author could mention it below the --- delimitor in the > patch posting. The changelog however, as annotation of the source > history, is not a billboard. We also don't describe for example that > a nice cup of hot Earl Grey or whatever was vital to the creation of a > patch. Well there's a difference between a nice cup of tea (that really has no direct connection to kernel development) and a tool that is in the Linux kernel specifically for the purpose of helping keep code clean, and that was used to come up with a cleanup. We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug or uncleanliness. We routinely mention checkpatch as well when it catches an uncleanliness in a submitted patch. It is absolutely fine to mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already got merged. I dont understand your point. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
