Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on empty commit log bodies

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:34:37AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> The text covering a patch should describe what the patch does, why it
> does it, how it does it and it should describe the end-user effects of
> not having the patch present.  Any and all of these can be skipped if
> they are utterly obvious and unneeded.
> 
> Changes should be properly described, that's all.  The means by which
> that is done isn't terribly important.  Sometimes most of the
> description is in code comments, or in a newly-added Documentation/
> file.

My usual advise to folks is that if someone might be scratching their
head about why the code 3 months later, it probably does belong in the
code comments.  On the other hand, an explanation for why the previous
code was buggy probably should be in the commit description --- if it
isn't obvious.

An explanation for what the user might see when the bug gets hit is
also useful if after the fact someone is trying to see if a particular
bug has been fixed in mainline already, as is a pointer to the
bugzilla URL.

But if it's something as simple as "fix spelling mistake", or "handle
OOM condition gracefully", it may be that thing more than a single
one-line patch title is all that is necessary.

						- Ted

> The reason I asked you personally to always send a changelog is because
> I quite frequently sit there scratching my head at your patches not
> having a clue what they do nor how to prioritise them.