On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:28:58PM -0400, David Miller wrote: > Feedback was given here not to mix the changelog and the commit message. > > And I want to explicitly state that I totally and _COMPLETELY_ disagree > with this. > > It is absolutely essential information and belongs in the commit message. > > Adding more information never hurts, so don't do this crap of putting > things that might be useful to know after the "---", ever. > > Someone in the future might ask "why didn't he implement it like XXX" > and the changelog can tell him that originally that is what was done > and feedback was given to do it differently. I see your point and am well aware the last word on this belongs to you. Still I would like to explain why I disagree: In my understanding, the changelog addresses reviewers only, so they know what to expect or which new chunks to have another look at. If the changelog provides valuable information beyond that, I think the mistake was to not update the commit message accordingly. Imagine a patchset being rerolled ten times with massive changes in between - do you really appreciate if the changelog applies to v1 only and people have to read through nine increments to find out what is actually being done? Although I'm exaggerating, one could apply the same logic to the code changes itself and demand v1 being applied as is with each evolution separately on top, as otherwise information is lost. Cheers, Phil > > So Xin thanks for correctly putting the changelog inside of the commit > message, so that future developers can benefit from this knowledge. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
