lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 17/17] xen: disable MSI
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> hm, i have to concur. Too often it ends up splitting attention away
>> from the title of the commit. I do reject (or fix up) bad impact
>> lines - will stop doing them altogether if you think there's a net
>> downside to them ...
>
> I actually think that if there is a good reason for them, they can stay.
>
> Just don't make it one of those "every commit that goes through me has to
> have one".
>
> Pu another way: if they actually add value in highlighting the commits
> that _should_ stand out, then hey, by all means, keep such ones. I would
> not at all object if it was an issue of
>
> [ Impact: fix bugzilla entry 455123 ]
>
> or
>
> [ Impact: fix user-triggerable oops ]

Ideally "Impact" is pointless if you are otherwise writing a clear,
concise commit description. "Fixes user-triggerable oops" on a line by
itself is clear enough, and is how I've been writing descriptions for a
while.

People with the urge to add "Impact:" to every commit wind up either
being redundant, or for small patches, having the entire ex-Subject
commit description be "Impact: blah blah blah"

If IOW, if the impact is not already clear, you're doing something
wrong, and "Impact" is not necessarily going to fix that.

Jeff





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-28 21:55    [W:0.065 / U:0.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site