lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: char/tpm: Improve a size determination in nine functions
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 05:22:19PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Do you find my wording “This issue was detected by using the
> >> Coccinelle software.” insufficient?
> >
> > This is fine for cover letter, not for the commits.
>
> I guess that there are more opinions available by other contributors
> for this aspect.
>
>
> > After your analysis software finds an issue you should manually analyze
> > what is wrong
>
> This view is generally fine.
>
>
> > and document that to the commit message.
>
> I tried it in a single paragraph so far (besides the reference
> for the tool).
>
>
> > This applies to sparse, coccinelle or any other tool.
>
> I find that further possibilities can be considered.
>
>
> > Tool-based commit messages are bad for commit history
>
> I disagree to this view.
>
>
> > where as clean description gives idea what was done
> > (if you have to maintain a GIT tree).
>
> How do you think about to offer any wording for an alternative
> which you would find better?
>
>
> > In my opinion tool is doing all the work but the part
> > that you should do is absent.
>
> Really?
>
> Regards,
> Markus

Commit message should just describe in plain text what you are doing
and why.

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-22 17:16    [W:0.978 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site