On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:12:22PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 12:19 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 03:27:04PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 15:40 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 02:59:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > ...instead of open coding its functionality. > > > > > > > > Same comment about making the changelog complete, independent of > > > > the > > > > subject. > > > > > > Any suggestion how it would look like? (Same question for previous > > > comment) > > > > PCI: Re-use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper > > > > Use new dmi_get_bios_year() helper instead of open-coding its > > functionality. > > > > The usual document structure is something like: > > > > TITLE > > > > This abstract contains a summary of the entire document, in a few > > paragraphs of complete sentences. > > > > Where "TITLE" makes sense all by itself, even without reading the > > body, and "Body" is a complete statement that also makes sense all by > > itself without having to read "TITLE" first. > > > > Thank you for a hint! > > > Granted, it's trivial, but following the convention improves > > readability slightly because it fits the reader's expectations. > > > When the body is "...instead of open coding its functionality", it's a > > bit of a hiccup because I have to start over and look back up to the > > title to re-read the thing as a whole. > > OK, I got your point, though I don't like duplication in the subject and > body. Ah, I see. I think of the subject and the body as serving two distinct purposes, so for me there's no issue even if they happen to contain exactly the same text. Bjorn
