Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753176Ab3HCU3C (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:29:02 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:42603 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752993Ab3HCU3A (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:29:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1714177.6pDg1Dt5hn@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1375400641-1694-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com> <2947185.O65YUjZvxL@vostro.rjw.lan> <1714177.6pDg1Dt5hn@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 15:28:58 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi: video: trivial costmetic cleanups From: Felipe Contreras To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Aaron Lu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Zhang Rui , Jiri Kosina Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3744 Lines: 87 On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki 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 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 wrote: >> >> > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:15:38 PM Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Lu wrote: >> >> >> > On 08/02/2013 07:43 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/