Am 12.07.2012 22:21, schrieb Blue Swirl: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Wolf <kw...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Am 08.07.2012 21:22, schrieb blauwir...@gmail.com: >>> From: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Use 'unsigned int' for bit numbers instead of 'unsigned long' or >>> 'int'. Adjust asserts. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> >> >> I haven't followed the original discussion and therefore don't know what >> the controversy is about (nor do I feel like reading it up), but if >> there is no consensus, I would expect even more than already for normal >> patches that the commit message doesn't only state the obvious change, >> but also the reasons for the change. >> >> This message isn't much different from the famous "i++; /* increase i by >> one */" code comment. > > The message could be improved by vast amounts, but in my view it is > sufficient for such a simple change.
No, it's not. The change is simple (so you don't necessarily need to repeat what has changed, I see it in the diff), but the reasons aren't obvious. So please state them even for totally simple mechanical changes. Kevin
