Hi Kieran, On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 05:10:06PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Eugeniu, > > On 17/08/18 16:56, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > Hello Kieran, > > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 02:44:25PM +0100, Kieran Bingham wrote: > >> Hi Eugeniu > >> > >> Thank you for the patch. > >> > >> On 12/08/18 14:31, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > >>> Document the support for rcar_can on R8A77965 SoC devices. > >>> Add R8A77965 to the list of SoCs which require the "assigned-clocks" and > >>> "assigned-clock-rates" properties (thanks, Sergei). Rewrap text. > >> > >> I don't think you needed to say you rewrapped the text in the commit log > >> - but it's fine :) > > > > IMHO "Rewrap text" is pretty much from the same category as "no > > functional change was intended". > > Indeed, but in this instance - there was a functional change. You > modified the paragraph. In fact, mentioning that you have rewrapped the > text, thus implying that you have made no functional change might cause > a reviewer not to look deeper at the actual differences? > > > > As a reviewer, I would take these > > details in the commit description any day (and sometimes I would NAK a > > patch which lacks these details), since they precisely express the goals > > set by the author and make reviewer's life easier. > > > > But, of course, preferences vary and therefore I won't elaborate on that > > too much. > > If this was a separate hunk, which you had re-wrapped without making a > change to - I would absolutely agree with you here. The 'rewrapping' > should be mentioned in the commit message, but this in relation to a > paragraph which you had modified. > > IMO - if you modify a paragraph of text, rewrapping to make sure it fits > the constraints is part of that modification ... but ... yes we are > debating minor details and preferences here ;) - I have no objection to > you mentioning it. Ok, I get your point. I have to tune my auto-pilot to avoid writing down obvious things in the commit descriptions. > > Regards > > Kieran Thanks, Eugeniu.
