lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c

* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:17:49 am H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > "build fix" is valid and proper use: it tells that it
> > fixes a compilation error, which succinctly communicates both the
> > priority of the fix and how it needs to be validated.
>
> Side note: I really prefer to see the compile error output in this
> case: great for googling. It annoys me when people skip this.
>
> Anyway, Impact: had lead me to think harder about my messages than
> the free-form commit style did. Perhaps it's too rigid, but it
> helped.

btw., and i think this is the crux of the matter, Rusty was quite
sceptic about impact lines in the beginning, and did not like them
_at all_. We had discussions (months ago) about it with Rusty and he
had a similar position to other "read only" participants in this
thread.

And i can tell it from the other side of the fence: Rusty's trees
were very nice before, but they became _even_ nicer after he started
using impact lines. It was very noticeable.

Impact lines are intentionally rigid - but all 'forced' measures
(like signed-off lines, or a title, or other patch submission
standards) are rigid in a way and they elicit an initial backlash
from people who have never adhered to them before.

Impact lines have most of their effects on the people who _write_
them: contributors and first-hop maintainers. Their role becomes
informative as the hops increase - and they might even become
annoyingly meaningless and verbose as the hop count reaches Linus
;-)

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-16 10:01    [W:0.149 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site