Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] docs: process: submitting-patches: clarify imperative mood suggestion

[Jonathan Corbet]

Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> While we expect commit message titles to use the imperative mood,
> it's ok for commit message bodies to first include a blurb describing
> the background of the patch, before delving into what's being done
> to address the situation.
>
> Make this clearer by adding a clarification after the imperative mood
> suggestion as well as listing Rob Herring's commit 52bb69be6790
> ("dt-bindings: ata: pata-common: Add missing additionalProperties on
> child nodes") as a good example commit message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I'm rather less convinced about this one.  We already have a whole
section on describing changes.  Given that this crucial document is
already long and hard enough to get through, I don't really think that
adding some duplicate information - and the noise of more labels - is
going to improve things.

Thanks,

jon