From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1JAxp4-0001Ye-Qr for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:27:38 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JAxp3-0001YG-Di for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:27:37 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JAxp2-0001Y4-35 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:27:36 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAxp1-0001Y1-US for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:27:35 -0500 Received: from ns39764.ovh.net ([91.121.25.85] helo=nexedi.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JAxp1-0005I7-L1 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:27:35 -0500 Received: from [10.8.0.46] (unknown [10.8.0.46]) by nexedi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50DC3EB24 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:32:24 +0100 (CET) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:27:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20071231031229.1ilqcnpcwkc0oww8@webmail.spamcop.net> <20080103121112.GB6169@thorin> <20080103102846.mhnl7v6xw4ksk48k@webmail.spamcop.net> In-Reply-To: <20080103102846.mhnl7v6xw4ksk48k@webmail.spamcop.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801050227.34479.okuji@enbug.org> X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Subject: Re: Testing on PowerMac G4 X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 01:27:37 -0000 On Thursday 03 January 2008 16:28, Pavel Roskin wrote: > >> Linux style description. The first line is the synopsis. If it > >> doesn't fit 72 characters, the patch is a candidate for splitting. > >> Then an empty line. Then a more detailed description of the patch, > >> including the motivation behind the changes. The list of the affected > >> files can be generated by the version control system. > > > > Looks good. But I guess you'll have to convince Marco and Okuji > > about this :-) > > Sure, it's in my TODO list :) I do not think automatically generated logs can be as precise as being made by human. Anyway, there is no reason that you shouldn't write a detailed description in ChangeLog. Indeed, I myself sometimes do that, when I make a big change or something hard to understand. Okuji