On May 8, 2019 4:33 PM, "Richard Henderson" <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5/8/19 1:15 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > > On May 8, 2019 2:19 AM, "Richard Henderson" < richard.hender...@linaro.org > > <mailto:richard.hender...@linaro.org>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > > > This commit message doesnˊt explain the reason for the change, and why is this > > an improvement. The underlyng reason for distingishing between env_cpu and > > env_archcpu cases is not explained too. > > It's certainly explained in the preceeding patches that introduce those functions. > > Are you suggesting that it is beneficial to copy-and-paste a common block > explanation into 21 commit messages for each of target/foo/?
My objection, as I am the maintainer for MIPS part, is about this very commit. If you can't put together a classical standalone commit message which will be according to our guidelines for writing a good commit message, the minimum I expect from you is the following commit message: “Please refer to the commit message(s) for commit(s) <here you list the titles of the commits that contain explanation for this commit> for details.” If I were you, I would do the same in all similar cases, but again, at this moment I am talking about this commit only, and I am insisting on not allowing empty commit messages for any code I maintain, without exceptions. Regards, Aleksandar > > r~
