On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:19:44PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > But is discourage the creation of pure clean-up patches because it
> > may have a disturbing effect on several other peoples work.
>
> pure clean ups are _good_ patches , are they not?
>
Not necessarily. Whether or not it is requires common sense, and very
often we get enthusiastic new-comers (some of them with very weak C
programming skills :-) who might try to use checkpatch.pl. So we
can't assume that they will know when a pure clean-up patch is a good
thing, and when it's a waste of everyone's time, including theirs.
That's why I think the warning is a good thing. It makes it more
likely that this gets communicated to the enthusiastic, well-meaning,
newcomer. Someone who is more experienced and who knows how to
determine whether some driver is ancient and not being worked on, and
hence a pure clean-up patch won't be screwing up other developers,
will know how to suppress the warning. (OTOH, how important is it in
the grand scheem of things to create or apply a pure clean-up patch on
a patch that few people if any are looking at?)
- Ted
--
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/
