Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 May 2009 15:51:33 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |