On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:03:22 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
On 2015-07-24 09:50, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:15:07 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
On 2015-07-24 08:54, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 06:50:42 +0200, woodrow.shen@canonical.com wrote:
From: Woodrow Shen woodrow.shen@canonical.com
Fix the headset mic that will not work on Dell desktop machine. BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1475553 Signed-off-by: Woodrow Shen woodrow.shen@canonical.com
I have repeatedly received patches with the very same subject and with the very similar content but without further explanation. It's too confusing.
Please look through the git commit history of this file, and re-read your patch. Then, consider a more useful subject / description, and resubmit the patch.
Hi Takashi,
We're doing enablement of machines and several of them need pin quirks in order to have the headset mic working. Since these machines are pre-release, we are not allowed to make the final name of the machine public (e g, "Dell XPS 13"). For the same reason, we cannot give you alsa-info either.
Given this constraint, how do you suggest we improve the subject / description? Or should we wait to submit upstream until the machine has been released to the market?
I don't mean to give alsa-info.sh output or such. The problem is that it's always with the same subject and the same text. How do you know it's for what and apply in which order?
At least you should try the patch looks different with each other, describe the relationship with previous commits, etc.
Right, so merely change the semantics, like "One more headset quirk", "Yet another headset quirk", "a totally splendid headset quirk", "oh look it's a headset quirk", "a headset quirk for a sunny day", and so on?
Even that is better than the current form. You can mention which patch is the second patch that should be applied after which commit. Or, you can give a bit more specific information like the codec name. And you can name the difference of pincfgs from others. We need to know *why* this change is needed.
The relationship with previous commits is that they fix the same problem for different machines, so they're usually independent of each other.
But it is: you cannot apply the patch cleanly if you don't follow the order.
thanks,
Takashi