[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Testing on PowerMac G4

From: Pavel Roskin
Subject: Re: Testing on PowerMac G4
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:02:17 -0500

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 02:27 +0100, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Thursday 03 January 2008 16:28, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > >> Linux style description.  The first line is the synopsis.  If it
> > >> doesn't fit 72 characters, the patch is a candidate for splitting.
> > >> Then an empty line.  Then a more detailed description of the patch,
> > >> including the motivation behind the changes.  The list of the affected
> > >> files can be generated by the version control system.
> > >
> > > Looks good.  But I guess you'll have to convince Marco and Okuji
> > > about this :-)
> >
> > Sure, it's in my TODO list :)
> I do not think automatically generated logs can be as precise as being made 
> by 
> human.
> Anyway, there is no reason that you shouldn't write a detailed description in 
> ChangeLog. Indeed, I myself sometimes do that, when I make a big change or 
> something hard to understand.

We are talking about a changeset from 2007-02-21 (the earliest of them),
where the ChangeLog entry has the usual "calculate this" and "rename
this to that".  It took me hours of experiments to figure out that the
intention was to load the core image and the modules much lower in the
memory.  Sure, it looks trivial when explained.

And by the way, a trivial change that doesn't modify anything as
fundamental as memory layout could be described in very similar terms.
There is no way to see how profound changes are and whether they are
relevant to the observed problems.

Detailed descriptions may be useful in many cases, but in my opinion,
they should be secondary to high level descriptions.

Pavel Roskin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]