From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756627AbZCACyT (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753471AbZCACyK (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:10 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:42454 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751234AbZCACyJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:09 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:53:57 -0500 From: Theodore Tso To: Mark Brown Cc: Stefan Richter , Andy Whitcroft , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on empty commit log bodies Message-ID: <20090301025357.GC10751@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Mark Brown , Stefan Richter , Andy Whitcroft , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20090228155841.GA15127@sirena.org.uk> <49A962F8.30609@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090228164627.GC15127@sirena.org.uk> <49A97563.6040906@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090228175218.GA4606@sirena.org.uk> <49A98F93.5030206@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090228210223.GA23191@sirena.org.uk> <49A9C252.50204@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20090301001829.GA10751@mit.edu> <20090301004618.GA12909@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090301004618.GA12909@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 12:46:19AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > The reason I sent the patch was that sending changelogs like that for > trivial changes is getting me negative feedback and I'm seeing other > comments about "unchangeloged patches" on the lists so I'm pretty sure > it's not just something I'm doing. I'm not saying I'm always blameless > here but when people are using terms like like "unchangeloged" it really > does suggest that one line changelogs are just considered not to have > changelogs. Well, I certainly don't have a problem with this. I in fact get *really* *annoyed* when I get patch submissions where the subject line is replicated in the body, since I then have to manually edit the mail message before I can run "git am" on the mail message. Who's been complaining? I can certainly tell you I'll complain in the opposite direction, but that's because it actually causes me more work as a maintainer. If people are kvetching, maybe they should complain to git mailing list and ask for a different git commit to e-mail message convention --- but it's really not hard to look at the subject line. - Ted