[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:0.111 / U:13.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site