lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/19] crypto: proc - Fix checkpatch errors
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:26:46AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
> Another workflow question:
> Does LKML as a whole prefer rebased patches, patches on top of the
> old one or does not one care as long as it's clear what to apply in what
> order?
> Or does everyone have a different opionion, in which case: What is
> yours?

It depends on what you're working on. For this case in particular,
sending the missing bits instead of the whole thing is my preferred
solution.

Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-20 14:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans