Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Aug 2013 15:28:58 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi: video: trivial costmetic cleanups | From | Felipe Contreras <> |
| |
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > On Friday, August 02, 2013 08:34:29 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >> > On Friday, August 02, 2013 12:52:18 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:15:38 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 08/02/2013 07:43 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Please add change log explaining what you have changed. >> >> >> > It seems that the patch modify comment style only, some add a space and >> >> >> > some change spaces to tab, is it the case? >> >> >> >> >> >> The commit message already explains what the change is; trivial >> >> >> cosmetic cleanups. Cosmetic means it's completely superficial. >> >> > >> >> > And I have a rule not to apply patches without changelogs. So either I'll >> >> > need to write it for you, or can you add one pretty please? >> >> >> >> The commit message is right there. Maybe Jiri can apply it then, if >> >> not, then stay happy with your untidy code. >> > >> > First of all, I didn't say I wouldn't apply the patch, did I? >> > >> > Second, I asked you *nicely* to add a changelog so that I don't need to write >> > it for you. >> > >> > I don't know what made it difficult to understand. >> > >> > Anyway, I ask everyone to write changelogs and nobody has had any problems with >> > that so far. I don't see why I should avoid asking you to follow the rules >> > that everybody else is asked to follow. If those rules are too difficult for >> > you to follow, I'm sorry. >> >> The patch has a commit message that describes exactly what it does. > > No, it doesn't describe it exactly. You're contradicting facts. > >> Unless there is valid feedback I will not send another version. >> >> To me, a valid criticism to the commit message would be: "I read X, >> but I thought it would do Y". For example; "I didn't expect the patch >> to do white-space cleanups", but I think that's exactly what people >> expect when they read "trivial costmetic cleanups'. > > If what you're saying was correct, then it would be sufficient to use a > "this patch fixes a bug" commit message for every bug fix, but quite evidently > that is not the case.
No, it wouldn't be sufficient, take a look a the Corbert's list you yourself mentioned:
* the original motivation for the work is quickly forgotten
"this patch fixes a bug" doesn't describe the motivation.
* Andrew Morton also famously pushes developers to document the reasons explaining why a patch was written, including the user-visible effects of any bugs fixed
The reason for the patch is not documented, nor the user-visible effects.
* Kernel developers do not like having to reverse engineer the intent of a patch years after the fact.
The intent of the patch is not mentioned.
That is completely different with my patch.
Personally I like to answer these questions: What is the patch is doing (motivation)? What is the current problem? What is the change? What are the side-effects?
All those are clear with "trivial costmetic cleanups", they are not with "this patch fixes a bug".
I think you are committing a hasty generalization fallacy. Not all patches are the same.
-- Felipe Contreras
| |