On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 05:22:19PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Do you find my wording “This issue was detected by using the > >> Coccinelle software.” insufficient? > > > > This is fine for cover letter, not for the commits. > > I guess that there are more opinions available by other contributors > for this aspect. > > > > After your analysis software finds an issue you should manually analyze > > what is wrong > > This view is generally fine. > > > > and document that to the commit message. > > I tried it in a single paragraph so far (besides the reference > for the tool). > > > > This applies to sparse, coccinelle or any other tool. > > I find that further possibilities can be considered. > > > > Tool-based commit messages are bad for commit history > > I disagree to this view. > > > > where as clean description gives idea what was done > > (if you have to maintain a GIT tree). > > How do you think about to offer any wording for an alternative > which you would find better? > > > > In my opinion tool is doing all the work but the part > > that you should do is absent. > > Really? > > Regards, > Markus Commit message should just describe in plain text what you are doing and why. /Jarkko -- 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
