Re: Software evolution around “checkpatch.pl”?

[SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1254", Size: 1444 bytes --]

>> So I think checkpatch is striking the right balance here in
>> how it warns.  Obviously if it could assess the text
>> and come to an informed decision that would be great but
>> we are some way from that ;)
> 
> The 'informed' bit is difficult as it is mostly a political problem.

I find such a view very interesting.


> I just wish Markus would improve his consistently terrible commit messages

I tried to achieve another clarification a few times.


> that just restate the action being done and detail
> _why_ a particular thing _should_ be done.

Unfortunately, it seems that no other contributors picked
corresponding opportunities up so far.

You indicated also special software development challenges in your commit
“checkpatch: attempt to find unnecessary 'out of memory' messages”.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/382
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?idëfdc40969f24fc0cdd1349835d36e8ebae05374


> His acceptance rate would improve as many of these back and forth
> replies for what trivialities he posts as patches would be minimized.

My selection of change possibilities leads to mixed integration results.

I stumbled on variations for general change resistance.

Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html