Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 5.7-rc1

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 4/10/20 10:25 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:37 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> This one sits on top of the previous, figured that was easier than
>> redoing the other one fully.
> 
> It's actually easier for me if you remove the broken tag when you
> notice things like this (or use the same name for the fix tag and just
> force-update it).
> 
> And then send a "oops, me bad, I updated it" with the new pull data.
> 
> The reason: when I opened this thread, I didn't notice your follow-up
> at first, so I pulled the old tag, and so got the known-broken code.
> 
> And yes, I double-checked and caught it, unpulled and then re-pulled
> the fixed-up tag instead.
> 
> But if the wrong tag had been just overwritten or deleted, the extra
> steps wouldn't have been necessary.
> 
> Not a huge deal, it's not like it took me a lot of effort (it's more
> painful if I have to fix up conflicts twice, although even that isn't
> usually much of a bother since the second time I don't have to really
> analyze them again).
> 
> So just a heads up for "I wish you'd done X instead".

Noted! Since I sent out this pull yesterday and I knew I'd be away from
a keyborad all day today, I had to rush this followup pull this morning.
Normally I probably would have killed the branch and sent a new one.
Thanks for doing the right thing, and just pulling the new tag instead.

> Btw, on the subject of "I wish you had done X": this is not at all
> particular to you, and a lot of people do this, but pull requests tend
> to have the same pattern that we are trying to discourage in patch
> descriptions.
> 
> So in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, we talk about this:
> 
>  "Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
>   instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
>   to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
>   its behaviour"
> 
> because once it's then accepted into git, the whole "this patch" kind
> of language doesn't really make much sense. It's much better to just
> describe what the change does, than say "this change does X".
> 
> The same is actually true when I merge your pull request, and I take
> the description from your email. Because the same way "This patch does
> X" does not make a regular commit message any more legible, the "This
> pull request does X" does not make sense in the commit message of a
> merge.
> 
> So I end up editing peoples messages a lot (and I occasionally forget
> or miss it).
> 
> Again, this is _not_ a huge deal, and I obviously haven't made a stink
> about it, but I thought I'd mention it since I was on the subject of
> "this causes me extra work".

I like it, I'll word my pull requests imperatively going forward.

-- 
Jens Axboe