Messages in this thread | | | From | Michael Ellerman <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull powerpc/linux.git powerpc-4.9-6 tag | Date | Mon, 28 Nov 2016 20:46:40 +1100 |
| |
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: >> >> powerpc fixes for 4.9 #6 >> >> Fixes marked for stable: >> - Set missing wakeup bit in LPCR on POWER9 (Benjamin Herrenschmidt) >> - Fix the early OPAL console wrappers (Oliver O'Halloran) >> - Fixup kernel read only mapping (Aneesh Kumar K.V) >> >> Fixes for code merged this cycle: >> - Fix missing CRCs, add more asm-prototypes.h declarations (Nicholas Piggin) > > Pulled, but I wanted to talk about your merge "summary". > > Your merge summaries seem to be entirely automatically generated, > which makes them less than great. I can see all that stuff in the git > tree already, just formatting it differently isn't all that useful.
OK. The starting point is obviously an automatically generated list of commits, but I have been editing that a fair bit to drop boring commits and combine multiple commits into a single line, and then sort it by topic area etc.
But obviously I'm not editing it enough, so I'll try to summarise it much more heavily.
> For something like this late-rc pull when there are only a couple of > commits, the end result actually ends up looking almost like a summary > and all I did was remove the names that don't add to the description > (and are in the git commits).
I actually do like to include the names, just to give people a bit of acknowledgment in the pull request, but I can drop them if you prefer. Or maybe I'll just include a credits section at the bottom of the tag with everyone's name once, and you can drop that from the commit?
> For some of the bigger pull requests, the summary is almost anything > but, and the only real value-add is the grouping by subject area. > > I really prefer a _summary_. Something that is human-legible. So that > when people read the merge commit log, they get an overview of what > changed, not a list of the details.
Right.
cheers
| |