Hi Charu, >From: Varadarajan, Charulatha >Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 7:27 AM > >Benoit, > >> > >> > This patch adds device name info to OMAP2 dmtimer fclk nodes so >> >> You should avoid using "that patch" in a changelog, since we already >> know it is a patch. >> >> You can read 4.c in "The perfect patch" from Andrew Morton: >> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/stuff/tpp.txt >> > >Referring to 6.b section in the above link, is it a bad idea to have >a cover-letter? Should we better include the content of introductory >email in patch 1 of any patch series? I saw it as well, and was a little bit surprised at first. But if you look carefully the rational, it makes sense if you do not take care about the content of the cover-letter. > Please don't do this. There is no facility in the git tree to carry > changelog-only changesets such as this (or at least, we don't do that) so > the information in the introductory email will be lost. > > So I end up copying and pasting your nice introduction into the > changelog for the first patch, so it gets into git. I'll follow it with > the text Here the concern is that some important information can be in the cover-letter but not in the patch changelog, so they will be lost. That issue does not appear if you use the cover-letter only to summarize the patches changelog and to provide the history or the various patch series revision. At the end the history and the patch series revision should no go into the changelog anyway, so it is perfectly fine to lose them. Bottom-line, keep doing cover-letter to summarize the series, but do not put information that should belong to the patch changelog only. Regards, Benoit Texas Instruments France SA, 821 Avenue Jack Kilby, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet. 036 420 040 R.C.S Antibes. Capital de EUR 753.920 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
