Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That position of not adding tool information to the commit log is not > just not tenable but also incredibly silly. It's not a hard requirement; it's a rule of thumb to detect changelogs which lack important information. I made it sound like a hard requirement for simplicity's sake. :-) (The rule works thusly: If the author put irrelevant information into the log, then this is a sign that insufficient care was taken and hence there is a danger that necessary information was forgotten.) > 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? Because the result is what counts: What is the change doing? Why change the source in this way? The changelogs don't teach programming or discuss our development methods. They are not a channel for feedback from tools users to tools developers. I stress again that putting irrelevant information into the log is almost as bad as forgetting relevant information. The S/N ratio is lowered by the latter /and/ by the former. > 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. We write it - to acknowledge the work which was spent by people, - to describe under which circumstances an issue was reproducible. "I used script XYZ to find whitespace style deviations" is fundamentally different from "I used this and that benchmark setup to produce the following results" --- because there are several alternative and *obvious* ways to find style deviations, while there may be only non-trivial and highly specific ways to reproduce a bug or performance result. -- 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
