On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>> The patch was generated using the Coccinelle semantic patch framework.
>>>>
>>>> spam ?
>>>
>>> Hm? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. Do you think
>>> the credit is undeserved?
>>
>> *shrug* ... i dont see other patches with things like:
>> The patch was generated with git.
>> The patch was generated with eclipse.
>> The patch was generated with emacs.
>> etc...
>>
>> we dont generally list all of the tools in the log message that was
>> used in *creating* a patch since it doesnt really add any value when
>> looking back historically at changes.
>
> Hm. I agree that git/eclipse/emacs/etc. information is not very
> useful. However...
>
> For errors found with lockdep, we usually put either the lockdep
> output in the commit message or say that it was found with lockdep.
> Having this information in the log is useful because it also
> establishes a track record for the tool which was used to discover/fix
> the error.
>
> Arguably, the semantic patch itself should be present in the log as
> well. There are different practices here, but in this case, the patch
> was quite long, and has already been included in a pending commit. Now
> others may use the same semantic patch (or a variation of it) and
> possibly find more "bad" code (possibly introduced after the semantic
> patch was first applied!).

that's reasonable to include the actual source (semantic patch) that
triggered the resulting change.
-mike
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/