Re: [PATCH] [trivial] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mux: Spelling s/required is/required if/

[Peter Rosin]

On 2017-09-25 17:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Peter Rosin <peda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2017-09-21 14:52, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Yes, this is trivial, both the patch and my complaint, but can you please
>> add a "body of explanation" as suggested by submitting-patches in its topic
>> "The canonical patch format"?
> 
> A patch should provide the answer to 3 questions: what?, why?, and how?,
> and IMHO all of these have been answered.
> What more can I say, besides duplicating the one-line summary?
> 
>> Maintainers accepting empty patch descriptions are publicly shamed, and
>> I do not wish to be in that boat, sorry...
> 
> Are they? AFAIK only if they apply patches that need more explanation.

There was an LWN article a while back that counted the number of patches
with an empty body and presented a table with top "offenders".

But ok, I'll just fix it up myself as I apply it. Hopefully w/o adding any
further speeling mitsaeks..,.

Cheers,
Peter