From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 21:38:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 21:38:52 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:62386 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 21:38:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20020529.182324.44462071.davem@redhat.com> To: marcelo@conectiva.com.br Cc: lmb@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.19-pre9 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Marcelo Tosatti Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:34:23 -0300 (BRT) > > (02/05/06 1.383.11.22) > > soft-fp fix: David, Greg, and others, please, more readable changelogs :) I don't understand what people want in that particular kind of case. I made software fp emulation fixes, four of them to be precise. And on the first line I describe in general what I'm doing, which is soft-fp bug fixes :-) I do the same thing for a batch of sparc64 fixes, the first line always is the toplevel description: sparc64 fixes: which proceeds the actual details: - Fix signal blah handling - Don't bleh during ptrace - Disable interrupts around foo - Fix IP checksum calculations when bar Now tell me what is more appropriate on the first line and I'll consider it :-)