Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:13:01 +0100 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove errors caught by checkpatch.pl in kernel/kallsyms.c |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote: > >> Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> We routinely mention Sparse, lockdep, Coverity, Coccinelle, kmemleak, >>> ftrace, kmemcheck and other tools as well when it motives to fix a bug >>> or uncleanliness. [...] It is absolutely fine to >>> mention checkpatch when it catches uncleanliness in code that already >>> got merged. I dont understand your point. >> I wrote "don't mention checkpatch" but I really meant "think about what >> the effect of the patch is and describe this". > > Are you arguing that in all those other cases the tools should not be > mentioned either? I dont think that position is tenable.
I'm arguing that in all those other cases the method "think about what the effect of the patch is and describe this"¹ applies just as well, and that the mentioning of the tools used does not add value for future readers of the changelog. When I go through changes from three or five years ago, I need other kinds of information than patch authoring tools that were en vogue some years ago.
Including anything relevant is the most important one of the tasks when writing a changelog; another --- only slightly less important --- task is to exclude anything irrelevant.
Of course what's relevant and irrelevant is in the eye of the beholder; but the used tools + materials (scripts, static analyzers, favourite editor, favourite crop of tea) surely are of very very low relevance.
------------- ¹) and if it not quite clear, describe also why this change is desirable -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= -==-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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/
| |