Re: [GIT PULL] libnvdimm for 4.18
From: Dan Williams
Date: Sat Jun 09 2018 - 11:17:37 EST
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Linus Torvalds
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 5:19 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If I get stuff that looks at all complex at the end of the merge
>> window, I will just cackle unpleasantly while I press the big 'D' key
>> on my keyboard.
> Side note: looking at what I just pulled, there was close to a D key here too.
> Dammit, the top commit in your tree is a merge. And the merge message
> for that merge is this:
> Merge branch 'for-4.18/mcsafe' into libnvdimm-for-next
> That's it. One line. That doesn't say anything at all.
> That kind of uninformative commit message wouldn't be remotely
> acceptable for a regular simple one-liner patch.
> WHY THE HELL DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO THINK THAT IT'S OK FOR MERGES?
> Dammit. Merges are *more* complex than random usual patches. They need
> proper commit messages. Yet you have two merges there with absolutely
> *no* information in the commit message.
> If you can't be bothered to write an informative commit message for a
> merge, you damn well shouldn't do the merge.
> It really is that simple.
Well, crap. I've been doing it the wrong way for a while. Do you have
a preference for more pull requests or just splitting what is now a
top level tag message into a summary changelog per branch when I merge
the ready branches for the merge window? I had been assuming that the
arrangement you have with Ingo / Thomas to pull individual topics was
a privilege for the tip tree and not necessarily something everyone
that sends you pulls should be doing.