On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Sedat Dilek <sedat.di...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From my side... How can the correbolation be improved...? > > The best workflow would be for someone to send patches that are considered > clean > enough. >
What do you mean by "patches that are considered clean"? "Clean" in the sense of is-not-a-hackery and/or patch-does-not-follow-Linux-kernel-development-guidelines [1]? [ EXAMPLES ] [ commit subject-line ] Like a "meaningful" subject-line... I have seen patches which did not use commonly-used labels, like "x86/weight:". ( 'git log /path/to/file' tells someone how other's did it. ) [ commit message ] Personally, I did not like the embedded commit-messages (change-log) - it was sometimes not very helpful. Helpful would be hints to a discussion thread (ML), bug-no in BTS, output of a BROKEN build, etc. ... Oh, if we all would follow Peter H. blog-article "On commit messages" [2]. ( /me dreams of a better world. ) - Sedat - [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/SubmittingPatches [2] http://who-t.blogspot.de/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
