On Friday 23 October 2015 20:19:46 Pingbo Wen wrote:
>
> > Also, we don't normally have enumerated lists in a changelog, just use
> > normal text. The best changelogs typically have three paragraphs:
> >
> > The first paragraph describes what the driver currently does. For really
> > obvious cases, this can be combined with the second paragraph.
> >
> > The second paragraph explains why that is bad. This is where you can
> > mention the monotonic time vs real time issue and say whether we
> > just want the timeval removed to fix the kernel in general or whether
> > this particular driver is broken.
> >
> > The third paragraph explains what the patch does to resolve the issue
> > described in the second one. This is also where you can list other
> > approaches that would have solved the problem, and why you picked on
> > over the others.
>
> Do we really need this in ChangeLog? Commit msg already states this. I think
> the purpose of ChangeLog is let people know the main difference of two
> version patch at a glance, and the ‘what’ and ‘why’ should be placed in
> commit msg.
>
I was using the terms changelog and commit message interchangeably, sorry
for being unclear. I meant the part above the --- line. The revision
history you have below the --- line looks good here.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
