Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:34:56 -0400 | From | "Mike Frysinger" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] blackfin/sram: use 'unsigned long' for irqflags |
| |
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework. >>>> >>>> spam ? >>> >>> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think >>> the credit is undeserved? >> >> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like: >> The patch was generated with git. >> The patch was generated with eclipse. >> The patch was generated with emacs. >> etc... >> >> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was >> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when >> looking back historically at changes. > > Hm. I agree that git/eclipse/emacs/etc. information is not very > useful. However... > > For errors found with lockdep, we usually put either the lockdep > output in the commit message or say that it was found with lockdep. > Having this information in the log is useful because it also > establishes a track record for the tool which was used to discover/fix > the error. > > Arguably, the semantic patch itself should be present in the log as > well. There are different practices here, but in this case, the patch > was quite long, and has already been included in a pending commit. Now > others may use the same semantic patch (or a variation of it) and > possibly find more "bad" code (possibly introduced after the semantic > patch was first applied!).
that's reasonable to include the actual source (semantic patch) that triggered the resulting change. -mike
| |