|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
|| ||Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c |
|| ||Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:55 -0700|
|| ||hpa-AT-zytor.com, mingo-AT-elte.hu, tglx-AT-linutronix.de,
|| ||Article, Thread
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > "cleanup" is indeed the most common, as it is intended to signify a
> > trivial but nonzero code change. Whether or not it's *correct* is
> > another matter. "build fix" is valid and proper use: it tells that it
> > fixes a compilation error, which succinctly communicates both the
> > priority of the fix and how it needs to be validated.
> Why would that be "proper use"?
> Dammit, if the "build fix" is not obvious from the rest of the commit
> message, there's something wrong.
> And if it _is_ obvious, then the mechanical "Impact:" thing is pointless.
> In other words - in neither case does it actually help anything at all.
> It's only distracting noise.
I'm getting quite a few Impact:s now and I must say that the Impact:
line is always duplicative of the Subject:. Except in a few cases, and
that's because the Subject: sucked.
But I leave the Impact: lines in there because I'm nice.
to post comments)