Re: Warp patches for 2.6.26

["Grant Likely" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Sean MacLennan <seanm@seanm.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:44:30 +1000
>  "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
>  > Hi Sean,
>  >
>  > First comment is that you need reasonable changelogs i.e. explain why
>  > you are making changes as well as what they do.  Also the first line
>  > of each changelog (which becomes the subject of any mail generated
>  > from git) should be a useful and relatively unique summary.
>  >
>
>  These patches are an amalgamation of a lot of commits. For
>  example, warp.c was changed 15 times since I last sent a patch to
>  linuxppc-dev. warp-nand.c was probably changed even more as we kept
>  shifting the design.
>
>  One of the advantages of an FPGA based design is you can work around a
>  lot of hardware problems. A disadvantage is that it is easy to change,
>  so it changes a lot. And the HW guys push the specs out to after they
>  actually get the feature going. There is no SW input into the FPGA
>  design.
>
>  So these patches are basically following the changes to the FPGA and
>  changes to the hardware. As new functionality was added, I updated the
>  code.
>
>  Is there a particular way I should word this to make it a changelog?

You can still describe what the code changes; either by itemizing all
the changes; or if it now appears to be a whole new thing, but
describing what it does /now/.  :-)

A changelog of "updates a bunch of stuff" is pretty much irrelevant in
all situations I can think of.

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.