Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753261AbZDPHP3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:15:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752699AbZDPHPV (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:15:21 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:35594 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752698AbZDPHPU (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:15:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:14:42 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com Subject: Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c Message-ID: <20090416071442.GA2351@elte.hu> References: <20090415133255.b6a33bfe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090415210353.GA27368@elte.hu> <20090415224017.GA18764@elte.hu> <20090416000841.GA18185@elte.hu> <20090416005025.GA2779@elte.hu> <49E6B51A.5030501@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49E6B51A.5030501@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1500 Lines: 40 * H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> At least then it wouldn't break up the narrative, and it would > >> kind of fit with all the other "tagged" lines. > > > > Yeah, that makes sense. > > Actually, there is one good thing about this. One of the things > we've found useful is to have the maintainer add or edit Impact: > lines. Putting them with the tags would make it more clear who did > the impact assessment. Ah, indeed - good point. There two other good things about moving the impact line to the signoff section: - We can actually add it every time - even if it repeats bits of the subject line which would look weird if it was in the second line. Right now with the impact line in a prominent place i often feel reluctant to add an impact line when the subject line is good enough to describe the expected risk/impact of a change. - I can update my scripts to warn when i sign off on something with no impact line. I.e. the "dont forget to assess impact" step becomes even harder to flunk. /me likes. We then also need a good Documentation/impact-tag.txt description about it, and list the principles and a few good and bad examples. Would you like to write it up? Ingo -- 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/