User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c

From:  Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>
To:  Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>
Subject:  Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c
Date:  Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:55 -0700
Message-ID:  <20090415133255.b6a33bfe.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:  hpa-AT-zytor.com, mingo-AT-elte.hu, tglx-AT-linutronix.de, rusty-AT-rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, davej-AT-redhat.com
Archive-link:  Article

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.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.


(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds