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    [W:0.022 / U:61.844 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site