On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:51:12 +0100 (BST) "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > You always put boring, crappy, insufficient text in the for-the-changelog > > section and interesting, useful, sufficient text in the > > not-for-the-changelog > > section. > > I'll swap the sections in the future then. ;-) Frankly I was not sure > whether the changelog was happy about being fed with lengthy explanations > and it has not spoken out. I think it's worth putting plenty of details in the changelog: it's compressed on-disk and on-the-wire and is overall pretty cheap. If people don't actually seek the information out, it has close to zero impact on them. But on those occasions when people _do_ seek the information out (and it can be years later) then they want every drop of information they can get. Numerous times I've gone back to the 2.5.x mm/ changelogs to work out what on earth we were thinking when we did something, and it has proved quite useful in explaining the existing code, or in suggesting possible problems which we had forgotten about by 2007. otoh, you can get a lot of handy info by googling for strategic parts of the kernel code, or by googling snippets of the existing-but-short changelog. For example, this patch: google for "Keep track of disable_irq_nosync() invocations" and voila. Perhaps we don't need changelogs at all ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
