4 ms·

You wouldn't be offended, if you possessed the requisite context for your opinions. Linux kernel commits are very detailed and high quality. The style can be a

You wouldn't be offended, if you possessed the requisite context for your opinions. Linux kernel commits are very detailed and high quality. The style can be a bit ad hoc, but the face of enforcement is Linus himself. What you're looking at here is a throwaway piece of unnecessary text. Git offers the opportunity to include it, but it is generally left blank, because it adds no value. All of the interesting bits are included by incorporation. In this case, Andrew Morton decided to have a bit of ironic fun with the throwaway text. Dismissals ensue!

DudeInBasement 6y ago
Reeeeeeeeeeee. I have to read the code to understand it?!?!?
krick 6y ago
I'm not really "offended" since I don't really care about the state of Linux kernel's log. But since you insist on the discussing the case so much, let me add that I'm a person with very low tolerance for humour in the working process. I like jokes in the chat, email, or even in bugtracker's comments for that matter, but the git log (or any change log, for that matter) must be very clean, clear and boring. So even though I said > I have no idea of what constitutes this Morton's work and if he could've done better I very much believe that he could have. For 2 reasons: 1. There are multiple people with huge, broad, non-specific merges in that list, and every single one of them, did, in fact do better than Andrew Morton. 2. I believe that consistency in logs is good, so even in the case somebody really, truly, actually cannot say more, than just "updates" about the changes he introduces (which I don't think is ever true, but let's assume it is), I think "updates|updates|updates|updates" would still be a mile better, than "updates|more updates|yet more updates|still more updates".
bonzini 6y ago
> it is generally left blank Not at all. > it adds no value It is used by Linus to check what's going on and see if there's anything he should check more closely (perhaps cross-checking the message with the diffstat); it is used by developers (now or in the future) and journalists to make themselves an idea of what is being merged; it may explain features that are in development and have preparatory work being merged; and so on. So I'd say there's quite a bit of value there.
- quesera 6y ago
  Every single one of those pieces of information is included in the original commit messages, which are included by incorporation. The merge commit message is the equivalent of forwarding an email to someone and adding your comment at the top: "Really interesting, read this!" "Hey, look what Joe said..." Or the ever-popular message in CEO-speak: "?" Rephrasing the committer's message in the merge commit would be redundant at best, and confusing at worst.

DudeInBasement 6y ago

Reeeeeeeeeeee. I have to read the code to understand it?!?!?

krick 6y ago

I'm not really "offended" since I don't really care about the state of Linux kernel's log. But since you insist on the discussing the case so much, let me add that I'm a person with very low tolerance for humour in the working process. I like jokes in the chat, email, or even in bugtracker's comments for that matter, but the git log (or any change log, for that matter) must be very clean, clear and boring. So even though I said > I have no idea of what constitutes this Morton's work and if he could've done better I very much believe that he could have. For 2 reasons: 1. There are multiple people with huge, broad, non-specific merges in that list, and every single one of them, did, in fact do better than Andrew Morton. 2. I believe that consistency in logs is good, so even in the case somebody really, truly, actually cannot say more, than just "updates" about the changes he introduces (which I don't think is ever true, but let's assume it is), I think "updates|updates|updates|updates" would still be a mile better, than "updates|more updates|yet more updates|still more updates".

bonzini 6y ago

> it is generally left blank Not at all. > it adds no value It is used by Linus to check what's going on and see if there's anything he should check more closely (perhaps cross-checking the message with the diffstat); it is used by developers (now or in the future) and journalists to make themselves an idea of what is being merged; it may explain features that are in development and have preparatory work being merged; and so on. So I'd say there's quite a bit of value there.

quesera 6y ago
Every single one of those pieces of information is included in the original commit messages, which are included by incorporation. The merge commit message is the equivalent of forwarding an email to someone and adding your comment at the top: "Really interesting, read this!" "Hey, look what Joe said..." Or the ever-popular message in CEO-speak: "?" Rephrasing the committer's message in the merge commit would be redundant at best, and confusing at worst.