From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2BCD192D66; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735584025; cv=none; b=g+eHxUbSjMlFouxJkc92kQAg3Wc2M58IK+Bximh2gCfbKFjSw0aoVULKxSsTNgmGW6IZmkig4kMs4LJBdLXl0r1t/hsdwJ3xBFJG5Q5IL+hDIZOUILVEleCjfIKeia50um/LcxnkwuBfXSFdsU4z8ex+QqPCZoodXXQHS0+CTro= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735584025; c=relaxed/simple; bh=v7LUdKiXIF/2hRcwsGTrsO/WcbOEWSIXkejY4YWOfcE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=d9g7wLlrU3p/YRIXBJXh74kNx9Y3MWKMCh8+Z0E8SSdER0ueOEGW7mhdLIDxqhF852YldWg6nhBW8NSqCN0U2hcknAY+W1AUly3co2RYBMsl9VUEihiO6Izq4P/QHDUdQI/4V0c3Qmt+5FyVuVCvfJP9iTq19xDhIhFMGKpaAog= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=oQQQdWgD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="oQQQdWgD" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net EB9F0404EE DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1735584023; bh=WHD28073BZDSvPJWeaEAreWwhxbOeGD3u831qJss8hs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=oQQQdWgDKXNl6MevpLjWa7WXjmPlxK6AgWFJ6HmzvY5N17/vnkpC/crBGcIl4nfBi r55/y154/CcK6p287De9EzUEYqC4Lv2NvYRWWc9yHT+iQIbjzhW9pPUYzfJqhjAyv/ 51zTQpzFKD2Imi6XGE85xyYK0KjUv37FjmR0S6RXJTtCHfzGpoKJQ00bwyn5Z5z9AQ I0p9x2lzNWtY3VGtHRylVtCR0cwL+0FbXB6uUtQ7qG1uxfs6QVjz2ATO/Mk8+c/7LJ SXIcRmhq/au2ektW+HzKLHcNq/CP+ew6lxoEw50gqE5r4Wx7fNeLzLsDX72Ni8QWc5 U46LQwMS8bXwQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB9F0404EE; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 18:40:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov , Rob Herring , Frank Li , kernel@pengutronix.de, Ahmad Fatoum Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] docs: process: submitting-patches: clarify imperative mood suggestion In-Reply-To: <20241220-submitting-patches-imperative-v1-2-ee874c1859b3@pengutronix.de> References: <20241220-submitting-patches-imperative-v1-0-ee874c1859b3@pengutronix.de> <20241220-submitting-patches-imperative-v1-2-ee874c1859b3@pengutronix.de> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:40:22 -0700 Message-ID: <87r05p10bt.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Ahmad Fatoum writes: > While we expect commit message titles to use the imperative mood, > it's ok for commit message bodies to first include a blurb describing > the background of the patch, before delving into what's being done > to address the situation. > > Make this clearer by adding a clarification after the imperative mood > suggestion as well as listing Rob Herring's commit 52bb69be6790 > ("dt-bindings: ata: pata-common: Add missing additionalProperties on > child nodes") as a good example commit message. > > Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum I'm rather less convinced about this one. We already have a whole section on describing changes. Given that this crucial document is already long and hard enough to get through, I don't really think that adding some duplicate information - and the noise of more labels - is going to improve things. Thanks, jon