lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: add dedicated checker for 'Fixes:' tag
From
Date
> According to submitting-patches.rst, …

I find that the reference to this document can trigger further considerations
also for this evolving change description.


> "
> Do not split the tag across multiple
> lines, tags are exempt from the "wrap at 75 columns" rule in order to simplify
> parsing scripts
> "

Can it be nicer to use typographic quotation characters together with ellipses?


> And the current 'Fixes:' checker in "# Check for git id commit length and
> improperly formed commit descriptions" doesn't check for invalid commit id

Should this “link” refer to a known check name?


> length, so this patch adds dedicated checker to fix these issues.

Would you care to transform this information into an imperative wording?



> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -2820,7 +2820,7 @@ sub process {

> - $line !~ /\bfixes:\s*[0-9a-f]{12,40}/i))) {
> + $line !~ /^\s*fixes:\s*(?:[0-9a-f]{6,40})\s*(?:.*)/i))) {

I guess that the clarification around the relevance of word boundaries
will become also more interesting.

Will it become relevant to check if a provided change identification
can actually be resolved to the desired commit?


> @@ -2979,6 +2979,13 @@ sub process {

> + ERROR("FIXES_TAG",
> + "please use the 'Fixes:' tag with at least the first 12 characters of the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary(no across multiple lines)\n" . $herecurr);

* How do you think about to start this message with the word “Please”?

* Is the text “summary(no across” still questionable?

* Will there be a need to explicitly describe the data format
for the summary specification also at this place?

Regards,
Markus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-27 18:51    [W:0.057 / U:5.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site