From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 18:55:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] package/musl: Make scheduler functions Linux-compatible In-Reply-To: References: <509e7dab95b95c040af26c842e94777b069d6ba5.camel@gmail.com> <20190513221341.4150ab0c@windsurf.home> <071f102e7135306dfdba3203fbd35bdc07aa185f.camel@gmail.com> <20190514183356.50c06a52@windsurf> Message-ID: <20190514185548.13b23569@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, Please keep the mailing list Cc'ed. Thanks! On Tue, 14 May 2019 18:51:05 +0200 stefan.nickl at gmail.com wrote: > Should I move the text all out from the patch to the commit log, or can > I just duplicate the text inside and outside the patch? > Or should one be more detailed and the other shorter? The text can be similar, but it has a different target. The commit log is meant to be useful to Buildroot, so it should explain why in Buildroot we would want this change. The description of the musl patch itself should theoretically be unrelated to Buildroot: it should ideally be an upstreamable patch, and musl doesn't care about Buildroot specifically. So the patch description should really describe the change in terms of the upstream project, while the commit log should describe the change in the context of Buildroot. Does this helps? Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com