Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 
> > "cleanup" is indeed the most common, as it is intended to signify a
> > trivial but nonzero code change.  Whether or not it's *correct* is
> > another matter.  "build fix" is valid and proper use: it tells that it
> > fixes a compilation error, which succinctly communicates both the
> > priority of the fix and how it needs to be validated.
> 
> Why would that be "proper use"?
> 
> Dammit, if the "build fix" is not obvious from the rest of the commit 
> message, there's something wrong.
> 
> And if it _is_ obvious, then the mechanical "Impact:" thing is pointless.
> 
> In other words - in neither case does it actually help anything at all. 
> It's only distracting noise.
> 

I'm getting quite a few Impact:s now and I must say that the Impact:
line is always duplicative of the Subject:.  Except in a few cases, and
that's because the Subject: sucked.

But I leave the Impact: lines in there because I'm nice.