From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DD3C1A1EF7 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id c198so35768596ith.1 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JwuXqt/AVXMwfFK5uqaqFtuTX8ZM6OzgZRD/hvUzw70=; b=Wxe1S0j6g+sC7x/vJdBqT4ujEpNYvHFTM01IdeMZXUBoVk88iJZne+76oHWuAuyo1a hbku7nhQ8TkL84KK7yV3HPs2C2Z/B2XaefYTE9QFq5ghFdmq/y67eFocH5dOxbHU9tK4 XU3moCbjgCkV5HDykw6SquYvkYNBhJ+Is52As= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JwuXqt/AVXMwfFK5uqaqFtuTX8ZM6OzgZRD/hvUzw70=; b=BeQ4TMkKBANsFf/0jdCn/pe5T7NlIoiTayHye/ihW9MRYbIo1dtw2Wl7yL43zVq5dT Xp5wsHgl5Ctxij1bl7MHU8/h2oYNfWk42XojMiB47MiEj8UK/7VSYH499tC3RY/vY7qf J0Gf/OUjOc4yCTzJkQJIBEhd/PHfQsA4Ll1ua3N+2/+dKChN+qUBU9puDSxqNtYcmneT eqR7JSS4K9ixXGzrR1nEJ4/BevmA2fVAakkCBF0cNCZHkO1fe9l69rYe/ExSsbm/5Jn/ PB5TL9o2FKNhO7yniBYDpPQuGT+fnrgB1Xa4uZwEgQ960bY0lmsmKe6NEMWboFoHeJ1e DvFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOhUEHEEFQ5ePLex0NGL7czIs5ADT0b3BuBxbZ+9Yl+kerCGvhE9GKQLIodVKXnzWcpa0PoKow25JpOJXXh X-Received: by 10.36.141.194 with SMTP id w185mr8580510itd.87.1473270561635; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.204.195 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <147326996342.12894.6103663724254201876@jljusten-ivb> 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> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:49:21 +0100 Message-ID: To: Jordan Justen Cc: "Yao, Jiewen" , "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" , "Chan, Amy" 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 17:49:22 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 7 September 2016 at 18:39, Jordan Justen wro= te: > On 2016-09-07 01:00:46, Yao, Jiewen wrote: >> Jordan >> >> I have a quick check: >> >> Here is my observation: >> >> 1) From >> https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/Commit-Message-= Format, >> it mentions: >> >> o The length of 'Pkg-Module: Brief-single-line-summary' should not >> exceed 70 characters >> >> 2) In the PatchCheck.py, we have below code: >> >> if count >=3D 1 and len(lines[0]) > 76: >> >> self.error('First line of commit message (subject line) '= + >> >> 'is too long.') >> > > I think the general idea of the subject line is described well here as > the "summary phrase": > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Docum= entation/SubmittingPatches?id=3Dbca47613#n493 > > Regarding subject line length, I think that it should work well with > git log --oneline to produce output less than 80 characters. Based on > the standard prefix in git log --oneline, this would indicate that we > should try to use less than 72 characters. I guess the kernel uses > 70-75 characters for guidance. > >> >> 3) You recommendation >> =E2=80=9CMaintainers.txt: Add Giri as IntelFsp2*Pkg, IntelSiliconPkg = maintainer=E2=80=9D, >> it is 71 char. >> >> However, if we add =E2=80=9C[edk2] [PATCH]=E2=80=9D, it becomes 85 ch= ar. >> > > Hmm, I don't think "[edk2] [PATCH]" should be factored into the > length. The length after applying in git is what should matter. Is > this is a bug in PatchCheck.py? > > I think maybe the subject line length could be a warning from > PatchCheck.py, but it is almost always possible to reword the subject > line fairly easily. 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.