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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/