lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/
From
Date
On 2017-09-25 17:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
>> On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
>>
>> Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please
>> add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic
>> "The canonical patch format"?
>
> A patch should provide the answer to 3 questions: what?, why?, and how?,
> and IMHO all of these have been answered.
> What more can I say, besides duplicating the one-line summary?
>
>> Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and
>> I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry...
>
> Are they? AFAIK only if they apply patches that need more explanation.

There was an LWN article a while back that counted the number of patches
with an empty body and presented a table with top "offenders".

But ok, I'll just fix it up myself as I apply it. Hopefully w/o adding any
further speeling mitsaeks..,.

Cheers,
Peter

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-25 17:37    [W:0.043 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site