* Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. [...] That position of not adding tool information to the commit log is not just not tenable but also incredibly silly. Those tools are useful, they result in fixes, so why should the patch author pretend and hide the method of finding problems from the Git history? We often write "found via review" or "found via testing". It's useful and it gives people an idea of how certain types of fixes were found. 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
