From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB39F1A1F00 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2016 11:08:58 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,296,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="5786756" Received: from jjloucai-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.131.171]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2016 11:08:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ard Biesheuvel , Message-ID: <147327173725.14131.15005448210794747548@jljusten-ivb> From: Jordan Justen In-Reply-To: Cc: "Yao, Jiewen" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Chan, Amy" References: <1473211270-12320-1-git-send-email-jiewen.yao@intel.com> <147323211068.9581.7670554499055950051@jljusten-ivb> <74D8A39837DF1E4DA445A8C0B3885C50385FA9CA@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <74D8A39837DF1E4DA445A8C0B3885C50385FAA16@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <147326996342.12894.6103663724254201876@jljusten-ivb> User-Agent: alot/0.3.7 Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 11:08:57 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Maintainers.txt: Add Giri as 2nd maintainer X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:08:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2016-09-07 10:49:21, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 7 September 2016 at 18:39, Jordan Justen w= rote: > > > > If it is difficult to make a good short subject > > line, then it might be a sign that the patch should be split. For > > example, you could split this patch in 2. One for IntelFsp2*Pkg, and > > another for IntelSiliconPkg. (After all, they are 2 separate package > > types, so it is reasonable to change them separately.) > > > = > Please no. It is outright ridiculous to split a maintainer update > patch that adds the same person to two packages into two patches, only > because the subject line becomes too long otherwise. We are not > changing code here, things are not becoming easier to understand by > doing so, and 'making the tool happy' is the worst reason I can think > of to change a perfectly good patch. We're not trying to make a tool happy. We're trying to use the tool to help write better patches. Also, it is not like splitting it is difficult. If 5 packages are being updated, I want it to be clear in the subject line which packages are being updated. And, yet, I don't want the subject line length to grow far too long just because many packages are being changed. It does seem like in this case, my proposed subject line captures all the pacakges in one commit and is short enough. Personally, I don't really care to see the person's name in the subject line for package maintainer changes. Based on the subject line, if I'm interested in the package, then I can look at the patch to see who is being added/deleted. -Jordan