lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Kernel SCM saga..
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:00:51PM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:10, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > Do you have it automated to the point where processing emailed patches
> > > involves little more overhead than doing a bk pull?
> >
> > It's more overhead, but not a lot. Especially nice numbered sequences like
> > Andrew sends (where I don't have to manually try to get the dependencies
> > right by trying to figure them out and hope I'm right, but instead just
> > sort by Subject: line)...
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> In that case, a nice refinement is to put the sequence number at the end of
> the subject line so patch sequences don't interleave:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (1 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (2 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (3 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (v2, 1 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (v2, 2 of 3)

This breaks the rule of a descriptive subject for each patch.
Consider 30 subjetcs telling you "Subject: PCI updates [001/030]
That is not good.

Sam
-
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 22:00    [W:0.129 / U:12.764 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site