From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754748AbdDKLiB (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:38:01 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:62489 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752722AbdDKLh6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:37:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,185,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="1154316078" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: acme@kernel.org, jolsa@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, kan.liang@intel.com, yao.jin@intel.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner References: <1491908193-25418-1-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <1491908193-25418-3-git-send-email-yao.jin@linux.intel.com> <20170411075219.bcteozodfkmwo45f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170411083521.rlnkfz326rwpzs3k@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: "Jin, Yao" Message-ID: <4fd82c89-5986-1c4b-2195-a9d0e7245b04@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:37:53 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170411083521.rlnkfz326rwpzs3k@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/11/2017 4:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: >> >> On 4/11/2017 3:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> This is still a completely inadequate changelog. I really will not >>> accept patches like this. >>> >> Hi, >> >> The changelog is added in the cover-letter ("[PATCH v3 0/5] perf report: Show branch type"). >> >> Does the changelog need to be added in each patch's description? >> >> That's fine, I can add and resend this patch. > The cover letter is not retained; it is throw away information. > > Each patch should have a coherent changelog that explain why the patch > was done and explain non trivial things in the implementation. > > Simply copy/pasting the same story in multiple patches is not right > either, for the simple fact that the patches were not the same. You did > a different thing, so you need a different story. > > > Thanks so much for the suggestion! I accept this and decide to make changes on my patch description. Maybe not adding a full change-log, I will add a section in patch description to describe the major changes from previous version. Thanks Jin Yao