Maintainers often repeat the same feedback on poorly written
changelogs - describe the problem, justify your changes, quantify
optimizations, describe user-visible changes - but our documentation
on writing changelogs doesn't include these things. Fix that.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index dcadffcab2dc..0a523c9a5ff4 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -84,18 +84,42 @@ is another popular alternative.
2) Describe your changes.
-Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
-
-Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
-things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
-includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
+Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
+5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that
+motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a
+problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the
+first paragraph.
+
+Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are
+pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the
+problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think
+it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux
+installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or
+vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches
+from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change
+downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash
+descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc.
+
+Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in
+performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size,
+include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious
+costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU,
+memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between
+different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your
+optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits.
+
+Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing
+about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change
+in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving
+as you intend it to.
The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below.
-If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
-need to split up your patch. See #3, next.
+Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
+long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
+See #3, next.
When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
--
2.0.3
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 17:11 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Maintainers often repeat the same feedback on poorly written
> changelogs - describe the problem, justify your changes, quantify
> optimizations, describe user-visible changes - but our documentation
> on writing changelogs doesn't include these things. Fix that.
Agreed. Maybe other software projects can use this as well...
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index dcadffcab2dc..0a523c9a5ff4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -84,18 +84,42 @@ is another popular alternative.
>
> 2) Describe your changes.
>
> -Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
> -
> -Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
> -things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
> -includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
> +Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
> +5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that
> +motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a
> +problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the
> +first paragraph.
> +
> +Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are
> +pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the
> +problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think
> +it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux
> +installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or
> +vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches
> +from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change
> +downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash
> +descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc.
> +
> +Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in
> +performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size,
> +include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious
> +costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU,
> +memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between
> +different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your
> +optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits.
> +
> +Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing
> +about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change
> +in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving
> +as you intend it to.
Very nicely put. I would also add that past patches or attempts to solve
a related (or even the same) issue. What's different in my approach?
What are the past issues that cause original approaches not to get
merged? etc.
From: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:11:01 -0400
> Maintainers often repeat the same feedback on poorly written
> changelogs - describe the problem, justify your changes, quantify
> optimizations, describe user-visible changes - but our documentation
> on writing changelogs doesn't include these things. Fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 05:11:01PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Maintainers often repeat the same feedback on poorly written
> changelogs - describe the problem, justify your changes, quantify
> optimizations, describe user-visible changes - but our documentation
> on writing changelogs doesn't include these things. Fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
* Johannes Weiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maintainers often repeat the same feedback on poorly written
> changelogs - describe the problem, justify your changes, quantify
> optimizations, describe user-visible changes - but our documentation
> on writing changelogs doesn't include these things. Fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index dcadffcab2dc..0a523c9a5ff4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -84,18 +84,42 @@ is another popular alternative.
>
> 2) Describe your changes.
>
> -Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
> -
> -Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
> -things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
> -includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
> +Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
> +5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that
> +motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a
> +problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the
> +first paragraph.
> +
> +Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are
> +pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the
> +problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think
> +it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux
> +installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or
> +vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches
> +from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change
> +downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash
> +descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc.
> +
> +Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in
> +performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size,
> +include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious
> +costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU,
> +memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between
> +different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your
> +optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits.
> +
> +Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing
> +about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change
> +in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving
> +as you intend it to.
>
> The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
> form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
> system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below.
>
> -If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
> -need to split up your patch. See #3, next.
> +Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
> +long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
> +See #3, next.
>
> When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
> complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Ingo
On 07/30/14 14:11, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Maintainers often repeat the same feedback on poorly written
> changelogs - describe the problem, justify your changes, quantify
> optimizations, describe user-visible changes - but our documentation
> on writing changelogs doesn't include these things. Fix that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Applied with acks.
Thanks.
> ---
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index dcadffcab2dc..0a523c9a5ff4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -84,18 +84,42 @@ is another popular alternative.
>
> 2) Describe your changes.
>
> -Describe the technical detail of the change(s) your patch includes.
> -
> -Be as specific as possible. The WORST descriptions possible include
> -things like "update driver X", "bug fix for driver X", or "this patch
> -includes updates for subsystem X. Please apply."
> +Describe your problem. Whether your patch is a one-line bug fix or
> +5000 lines of a new feature, there must be an underlying problem that
> +motivated you to do this work. Convince the reviewer that there is a
> +problem worth fixing and that it makes sense for them to read past the
> +first paragraph.
> +
> +Describe user-visible impact. Straight up crashes and lockups are
> +pretty convincing, but not all bugs are that blatant. Even if the
> +problem was spotted during code review, describe the impact you think
> +it can have on users. Keep in mind that the majority of Linux
> +installations run kernels from secondary stable trees or
> +vendor/product-specific trees that cherry-pick only specific patches
> +from upstream, so include anything that could help route your change
> +downstream: provoking circumstances, excerpts from dmesg, crash
> +descriptions, performance regressions, latency spikes, lockups, etc.
> +
> +Quantify optimizations and trade-offs. If you claim improvements in
> +performance, memory consumption, stack footprint, or binary size,
> +include numbers that back them up. But also describe non-obvious
> +costs. Optimizations usually aren't free but trade-offs between CPU,
> +memory, and readability; or, when it comes to heuristics, between
> +different workloads. Describe the expected downsides of your
> +optimization so that the reviewer can weigh costs against benefits.
> +
> +Once the problem is established, describe what you are actually doing
> +about it in technical detail. It's important to describe the change
> +in plain English for the reviewer to verify that the code is behaving
> +as you intend it to.
>
> The maintainer will thank you if you write your patch description in a
> form which can be easily pulled into Linux's source code management
> system, git, as a "commit log". See #15, below.
>
> -If your description starts to get long, that's a sign that you probably
> -need to split up your patch. See #3, next.
> +Solve only one problem per patch. If your description starts to get
> +long, that's a sign that you probably need to split up your patch.
> +See #3, next.
>
> When you submit or resubmit a patch or patch series, include the
> complete patch description and justification for it. Don't just
>
--
~Randy