+ Peter Hi Olof,
On 12/5/2013 4:03 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > Pulled. > > A suggestion for the future, please try to use a patch description > that doesn't require you to motivate why this is needed now. I.e. the > patch description should contain: > > What is broken > How/when it broke (SHA or general timeframe) > How it's fixed > > In this case, it wasn't obvious what the actual breakage was (i.e. > audio not working), nor when it was introduced. > > Of course, if something is trivial you don't need to fill it in, nor > should it be a form-based description. But those three answers should > generally be possible to find in the patch description for a bugfix. Yes, understood. I generally do push back on this and this time I (quite unnecessarily) tried supplementing the information missing in description through the tag signing message. Should have made sure the commit description has the required information instead. Thanks, Sekhar _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
