Re: [PATCH, RFC] A development process document

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Stefan Richter wrote:

> Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > but.. but Andrew often has to take part(s) of #0/N and add them to the
> > changelog(s) to make the changelog(s) meaningful.  I.e., someone skimped
> > on what should have been in the changelog(s).
> 
> That would not be a problem with the cover posting, it would be a
> problem with the changelogs.  The same applies if the respective
> information is put below the '---' delimiter line in the individual
> patch postings. 

Or, for that matter, left out entirely. Or in the first actual patch of 
the series, since people will often be looking through the log filtered in 
some way, or bisect or blame will take them to the middle of the series.

> So just remember that changelogs need to be sufficiently comprehensive 
> even when read standalone, out of the context of the series.

I think this would be a good statement to include in the section about 
changelogs.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/