Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] docs: process: submitting-patches: clarify imperative mood suggestion

[Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>]

Hello Jon,

On 30.12.24 19:40, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> 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 <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
> 
> 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.

Do you agree with the content of the patch in principle?

My changes were motivated by a disagreement about the necessity of having
to use the imperative mood throughout as I described in my cover letter,
so I still think think that a clarification is appropriate.

Would a v2 without the example at the end be acceptable?

Thanks,
Ahmad




> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon
> 


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |