> According to submitting-patches.rst, …
I find that the reference to this document can trigger further considerations
also for this evolving change description.
> "
> Do not split the tag across multiple
> lines, tags are exempt from the "wrap at 75 columns" rule in order to simplify
> parsing scripts
> "
Can it be nicer to use typographic quotation characters together with ellipses?
> And the current 'Fixes:' checker in "# Check for git id commit length and
> improperly formed commit descriptions" doesn't check for invalid commit id
Should this “link” refer to a known check name?
> length, so this patch adds dedicated checker to fix these issues.
Would you care to transform this information into an imperative wording?
…
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -2820,7 +2820,7 @@ sub process {
…
> - $line !~ /\bfixes:\s*[0-9a-f]{12,40}/i))) {
> + $line !~ /^\s*fixes:\s*(?:[0-9a-f]{6,40})\s*(?:.*)/i))) {
I guess that the clarification around the relevance of word boundaries
will become also more interesting.
Will it become relevant to check if a provided change identification
can actually be resolved to the desired commit?
> @@ -2979,6 +2979,13 @@ sub process {
…
> + ERROR("FIXES_TAG",
> + "please use the 'Fixes:' tag with at least the first 12 characters of the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary(no across multiple lines)\n" . $herecurr);
* How do you think about to start this message with the word “Please”?
* Is the text “summary(no across” still questionable?
* Will there be a need to explicitly describe the data format
for the summary specification also at this place?
Regards,
Markus
