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 ESMTP id 27329982 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:22:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3D6201B3 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 21:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 23:22:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1401224020.14454.92.camel@dabdike> Message-ID: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140525222923.GW15585@mwanda> <1401119598.3303.6.camel@dabdike> <1401224020.14454.92.camel@dabdike> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Dan Carpenter , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 28 May 2014, James Bottomley wrote: > > With my distro person hat on, I'd really like to call at least for pushing > > driver maintainers much harder to be a lot more verbose in their > > changelogs (if splitting the commits into smaller chunks is not an > > option). Without that, trying to find out what change might potentially > > cause what kind of behavior turns into a nightmare. > > > > For an example picked up in a completely in random, look at this one > > > > commit 1ba981fd3ad1f91b8bb205ce6aac6aad45f2fa7a > > Author: James Smart > > Date: Thu Feb 20 09:56:45 2014 -0500 > > > > [SCSI] lpfc 8.3.45: Incorporated support of a low-latency io path > > Well, I don't disagree, but getting driver writers to supply changelogs > is hard. I know. But there just a one single force on planet Earth that can make this happen, and that's maintainer saying "No, you have to do better". > For the ones I understand, I've rewritten (or even composed) quite a few > change logs myself because I often don't get anything usable back when I > request a rewrite. Are you implying that Linux is still not in a position to force HW vendor companies to rather invest 30 man-minutes in order to have a proper changelog and driver merged in Linus' tree compared to receiving bad public press when they are being rejected (especially for such negligible reason as changelog text)? > My intolerance for bad changelogs is high in shared code, but for single > vendor drivers it's often hard just to get the code and keep it in sync, > so I have a lot lower tolerance. Unfortunately this doesn't make much of a difference for distro vendors when chasing unknown bugs. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs