On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Joe Perches
wrote:>> This sounds interesting to me! When I have some more time to
take a
>> look at this i might see if I can revive it.
>
> Can the terminology please be standardized to what
> was once called bylines?
>
>
On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 15:42 -0800, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:43:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow
> > > > work well with the
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:43:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow
>> > work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of
>> > inventing yet
> > I didn't know about trailers before. As I undestand it, I could use
> > "Tested-by" as the key, and the commit subject as the value. This list
> > then could be parsed and brought into proper output shape. It would
> > simplify the subject parsing, but most things my AWK script currently
> >
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:43:45PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow
> > work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of
> > inventing yet another parser of trailers.
> >
> > In its current shape,
Wolfram Sang writes:
> I didn't know about trailers before. As I undestand it, I could use
> "Tested-by" as the key, and the commit subject as the value. This list
> then could be parsed and brought into proper output shape. It would
> simplify the subject parsing, but most
> So the idea is to have list of those whose names appear on
> Reviewed-by: and Tested-by: collected and listed after the list of
> commit titles and author names. I personally do not see much
> downsides in doing so, but I do not consume that many PRs myself, so
> let's hear from those who
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow
> work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of
> inventing yet another parser of trailers.
>
> In its current shape,
Wolfram Sang writes:
> === new stuff starts here
>
> with much appreciated quality assurance from
>
> Andy Shevchenko (1):
> (Rev.) i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC
>
> Benjamin Tissoires (1):
>
Asking for opinions on lkml and git...
Getting enough quality assurance is likely one of the bigger upcoming tasks in
the near future. To improve the situation, praise the people already doing that
by adding their names to pull requests in the same manner that patch authors
are credited. Here is
10 matches
Mail list logo