[PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[T Dent]

I patch against the next-20101006 tree.

The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
staging directory.

Thanks,

Tracey Dent

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[matt mooney]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
> I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
>
> The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
> staging directory.

Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
odd.  And why did you not split apart those atrocious statements with
the infinite column width?

This patch series adds little benefit.  As Sam has suggested, a more
general cleanup would be a better goal, and staging is an area that
needs extra attention some of which has already been pointed out in
other emails.

-mfm

-- 
GPG-Key: 9AFE00EA

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[T Dent]

On 10/8/10, matt mooney <mfmooney@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
>>
>> The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
>> staging directory.
>
> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
> odd.  And why did you not split apart those atrocious statements with
> the infinite column width?
>
You're right I didn't notice. I just copy-and-paste a lot of commits
and just switch the directory.

> This patch series adds little benefit.  As Sam has suggested, a more
> general cleanup would be a better goal, and staging is an area that
> needs extra attention some of which has already been pointed out in
> other emails.

I am going to do a more general clean up. I was just breaking it up
into parts, so that its easier to review and get applied.

> -mfm
>
> --
> GPG-Key: 9AFE00EA
>

Thanks,

Tracey D

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[Dan Carpenter]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:16:35AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
> >
> > The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
> > staging directory.
> 
> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
> odd.

Maybe *you* write in the present tense.  Commit messages are important,
yes, but this in the end we all understood the message fine.  Please
don't be a jerk.

regards,
dan carpenter

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:16:35AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
> >
> > The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
> > staging directory.
> 
> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
> odd.  And why did you not split apart those atrocious statements with
> the infinite column width?

As Dan said, we understand what is happening here, and we do not have
grammer police for changelog comments, thank goodness.

> This patch series adds little benefit.  As Sam has suggested, a more
> general cleanup would be a better goal, and staging is an area that
> needs extra attention some of which has already been pointed out in
> other emails.

But these patches are all good to have, so I will be applying them,
please don't think they are unwanted at all.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[matt mooney]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:16:35AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
>> >
>> > The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
>> > staging directory.
>>
>> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
>> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
>> odd.
>
> Maybe *you* write in the present tense.  Commit messages are important,

This is not my convention; I also wrote my first few patches in the
past tense but noticed they were changed to the present.

> yes, but this in the end we all understood the message fine.  Please
> don't be a jerk.

Rereading what I wrote, I realize it can be interpreted as being rude,
but I think that is due to my direct writing style. My tone while
writing it was very lighthearted although without knowing me I
completely understand how it could come off wrong. To clarify, I
thought it was odd because the two lines (subject and body) basically
said the same thing using different verb tenses; my aim was not to
pick apart the grammar.

Thanks,
mfm


-- 
GPG-Key: 9AFE00EA

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[matt mooney]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:16:35AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
>> >
>> > The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
>> > staging directory.
>>
>> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
>> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
>> odd.  And why did you not split apart those atrocious statements with
>> the infinite column width?
>
> As Dan said, we understand what is happening here, and we do not have
> grammer police for changelog comments, thank goodness.
>
>> This patch series adds little benefit.  As Sam has suggested, a more
>> general cleanup would be a better goal, and staging is an area that
>> needs extra attention some of which has already been pointed out in
>> other emails.
>
> But these patches are all good to have, so I will be applying them,
> please don't think they are unwanted at all.
>

This is good to know. I wonder how well received these changes will be
in other parts of the kernel though. I purposefully started in a
subsystem you maintain since I figured any criticism from you would be
constructive and you wouldn't just knack without reason.

Thanks,
mfm


-- 
GPG-Key: 9AFE00EA

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 11:09:11AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:16:35AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
> >> >
> >> > The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
> >> > staging directory.
> >>
> >> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
> >> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
> >> odd.  And why did you not split apart those atrocious statements with
> >> the infinite column width?
> >
> > As Dan said, we understand what is happening here, and we do not have
> > grammer police for changelog comments, thank goodness.
> >
> >> This patch series adds little benefit.  As Sam has suggested, a more
> >> general cleanup would be a better goal, and staging is an area that
> >> needs extra attention some of which has already been pointed out in
> >> other emails.
> >
> > But these patches are all good to have, so I will be applying them,
> > please don't think they are unwanted at all.
> >
> 
> This is good to know. I wonder how well received these changes will be
> in other parts of the kernel though.

It depends on the subsystem maintainer.

good luck,

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH 00/33] Staging: Fixed <module-objs> to <module>-y

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 11:09:11AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 12:16:35AM -0700, matt mooney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, T Dent <tdent48227@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I patch against the next-20101006 tree.
> >> >
> >> > The patch series replace use of <module>-objs with <module>-y in the
> >> > staging directory.
> >>
> >> Commit messages are written in the present tense. You happen to be
> >> using two different tenses within the commit message, which is truly
> >> odd.  And why did you not split apart those atrocious statements with
> >> the infinite column width?
> >
> > As Dan said, we understand what is happening here, and we do not have
> > grammer police for changelog comments, thank goodness.
> >
> >> This patch series adds little benefit.  As Sam has suggested, a more
> >> general cleanup would be a better goal, and staging is an area that
> >> needs extra attention some of which has already been pointed out in
> >> other emails.
> >
> > But these patches are all good to have, so I will be applying them,
> > please don't think they are unwanted at all.
> >
> 
> This is good to know. I wonder how well received these changes will be
> in other parts of the kernel though. I purposefully started in a
> subsystem you maintain since I figured any criticism from you would be
> constructive and you wouldn't just knack without reason.

In staging it is OK with small very janitorial patches - at
least I see lots of these applied there.
But in the world outside staging most maintainers would expect
you to do a full update if you decide to clean up their Makefile.
If the updates are bigger then split it up.

But for trivial updates batch the Makefiles.

If you final patches end up:
1) Making the files more readable, and more standard looking
2) and do not add a lot of lines

then you will likely see that most maintainers will accept it.

But you also have to convince tham that you did a proper job
testing your changes.

A good test on Makefile cleanup is that nothing should rebuild
due to the patch being applied. This simple test have saved me
from a few brown papaer bag bugs in the past.

	Sam