From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 679AEA5E for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 06:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF9012C6 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 06:57:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 08:57:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: "Luck, Tony" In-Reply-To: <20190628205102.GA3131@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <7b73e1b7-cc34-982d-2a9c-acf62b88da16@linuxfoundation.org> <20190628205102.GA3131@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Patch version changes in commit logs? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:51:03 +0200, Luck, Tony wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 02:11:28PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > > In a recent patch discussion, I learned that some maintainers would like > > to see patch version changes in the commit log. > > > > I went looking in the git log and found a handful of recent commits with > > "Changes since" type information in the commit logs. It appears to be > > maintainer preference and a recent trend. > > > > I see the value in including the information. It can be informative > > and valuable for future work in the area. > > > > Is this something that we would like to see in all commits going forward? If > > so, updating submitting patch documentation and making > > sure the version information evolves from "informal" to more formal > > nature that fits in with the commit logs would be helpful. > > > > Making sure it doesn't get out of hand and commit logs don't > > become too long to be useful would also be helpful. > > > > Late entry, as I happened to come across this a day or two ago. > > Sounds somewhat pointless. Picking on a recent commit I see: > > Changes since: > v2: > - Added Fixes tag to patch 1 > - Fixed typo > - added GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE_STATIC and made use of it > - used GSWIP_TABLE_MAC_BRIDGE in more places > > v1: > - fix typo signle -> single > > I don't see why someone in the future trying to debug some problem > introduced by this commit would care that earlier versions had some > spelling mistakes or were missing a Fixes: tag. :-) > > Where substantial changes were made between patch versions it > would be useful if the commit logs were adapted to say things like: > > "We considered using technique X to do this but rejected > it because person Y said it had problem Z" > > That captures for posterity the useful information without > bulking up the commit log with the blow-by-blow deltas of > how the patch series evolved across 27 versions submitted > to the mailing list. Agreed. And I'm thinking whether we may have come consistent tag for following the post discussions on ML archive. Then the detailed descriptions can be dropped from the changelog, and readers can still follow easily. e.g. the patch version change can be simply a reference URL. thanks, Takashi