[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] stable kernel stuff and grumpy maintainers
H. Peter Anvin
hpa at zytor.com
Tue Jun 19 14:48:16 UTC 2012
On 06/19/2012 06:09 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> How does this help at all? If the change log is properly written, you
> get the impact statement out of it anyway (plus more nuance and far
> better insight into whether it should be backported). People who write
> bad changelogs will just do
> Fixes: a bug
> Impact: set the bit 2 instead of 3
> anyway; and people who write good changelogs tend to have already put
> the impact in the one line summary and then fret about what to write as
> an Impact: line.
> The bottom line is that adding more tags and process to changelogs
> doesn't solve the fundamental problem which is that a lot of people
> can't write good changelogs in the first place.
Well, for some people it does force them to stop and think about it in
order to be concise. This is an exercise frequently done in writing
classes. That still assumes that the developer is at all conscientious
about it, and as we have seen, there are certain developers (I won't
mention names) for whom communication seems like something that they
just plain don't need to bother with. The interesting thing is that it
is directly reflected in their code, which is equally obfuscated and
non-communicative: I started noting that I could spot said developers'
code just by looking at it. Clear code is a form of writing for a human
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss