Re: RFC: reviewer's statement of oversight

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Steven Rostedt wrote:
> But for those that run test suites, they should be smart enough to put
> in more documentation into the change log to state how it was tested.

I disagree.  The SCM changelog should contain _what_ a patch does and if
necessary _why_ it does so.  The rest (e.g. the sign-off tag to state
that the licensing is alright, and any other tags) should have its
meaning sufficiently defined outside the changelog.

Remember what the SCM changelog is for, i.e. what we do with it after
commit.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== =-=- -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux