* Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 2/15/2009 7:47 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:04:36AM +0530, Manish Katiyar wrote: > > > >> Hi Ingo, > > > >> > > > >> I used your code-quality script to do cleanup in kernel/kallsyms.c. > > > >> Below patch removes errors generated by checkpatch.pl. > > > > When doing so use checkpatch only as a hint generator and do > > > > not concentrate only on the warnings/errors generated by checkpatch. > > > > > > > > Your patch is an improvement but please fix the remaining issues. > > > > > > 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, e.g. > > > whitespace, maybe other things. (In case of nontrivial changes the log > > > may also need to explain not only the /what but also the /how/, but this > > > does not apply to patches like this one.) > > > > The commit log definitely needs enhancements but it's not uninteresting > > at all what tools were used to arrive to a change. It shouldnt be in the > > title, but can be mentioned in the changelog itself. (and should be > > mentioned if the cleanup ever gets as far as the mainline kernel - if a > > good and acceptable commit results out of a tool's usage then that tool > > needs to be advertised some more.) > > Is everything below the --- preserved in what is available via git log? No, it's lost, so the whole suggestion of putting the method of how a patch was motivated into the discarded section is incredibly silly. It should not shout in the title but is well placed somewhere in the changelog. 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
