![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Apr 7, 2005 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > So my prefernce is _overwhelmingly_ for the format that Andrew uses (which > is partly explained by the fact that I am used to it, but also by the fact > that I've asked for Andrew to make trivial changes to match my usage). > > That canonical format is: > > Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [<area>:] <explanation> > > together with the first line of the body being a > > From: Original Author <origa@email.com> > > followed by an empty line and then the body of the explanation. > > After the body of the explanation comes the "Signed-off-by:" lines, and > then a simple "---" line, and below that comes the diffstat of the patch > and then the patch itself. While specifying things, wouldn't it be useful to have a line containing tags that specifies if the patch contains new features, a bug fix or a high-priority security fix? Then that information could be used to find patches for the sucker-tree. / magnus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-04-07 20:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||