Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, >>> ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug >>> or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to >>> mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already >>> got merged. I dont understand your point. >> I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what >> the effect of the patch is and describe this". > > Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be > mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable. I'm arguing that in all those other cases the method "think about what the effect of the patch is and describe this"¹ applies just as well, and that the mentioning of the tools used does not add value for future readers of the changelog. When I go through changes from three or five years ago, I need other kinds of information than patch authoring tools that were en vogue some years ago. Including anything relevant is the most important one of the tasks when writing a changelog; another --- only slightly less important --- task is to exclude anything irrelevant. Of course what's relevant and irrelevant is in the eye of the beholder; but the used tools + materials (scripts, static analyzers, favourite editor, favourite crop of tea) surely are of very very low relevance. ------------- ¹) and if it not quite clear, describe also why this change is desirable -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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
