|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|
|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|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <email@example.com> 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.
Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds