[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Kernel SCM saga..
    On Apr 7, 2005 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds <> 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 <>
    > 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-07 20:12    [W:0.020 / U:12.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site