On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>[..]
>
> > Given a set of historical modifiers of a file,
> > would you take the most common commiter(s), or the most common
> > _recent_ commiter(s), or what? It's a bit fuzzy.
>
> All the above? Multiply frequency by recency, pi
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0300 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0300 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
> > > >
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
about posted patches to the other mailing lists whenever
someone forgets t
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:11PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > >...
> > > Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> > > when sending a patch to LKML by
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:26:01PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
[]
> > As you will see, nobody cares about comprehensive
> > patches/tests/bugs/testers/developers *tracking* system.
> >
> > And don't limit yourself to fast conclusions. Thanks.
>
> I am not proposing a comprehensive tracking system. I
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
> > > here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
> > > about posted
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:22:46PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > Right, however many patches don't map to bug reports and don't
> > need the heavy use of BTS. This suggestion is mainly for the
> > improvement of peer review concerning code changes submitted
> > by people who are not the maintain
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:08:54AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > * Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
> > > carbon copy fields in the E-Mails
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
> > here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
> > about posted patches to the other mailing lists whenever
> > someone forgets to add a
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> >...
> > Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> > when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
> > script can look at '.maintainers' file
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
>...
> Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
> script can look at '.maintainers' files spread across the
> source tree and automatically generate a proper l
On 6/30/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/30/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> an easier way to implement this is to add an extra field in the MAINTAINERS
> file, something like below. All the contact info would stay the same, closely
> where applicable and it wou
On 6/30/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
an easier way to implement this is to add an extra field in the MAINTAINERS
file, something like below. All the contact info would stay the same, closely
where applicable and it would allow you to also specify specific files as well.
Hmm, a
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
> > carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
> >
> > Basically, instead of manually figuring out wh
Dan Aloni wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers' f
* Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
> carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
>
> Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
>
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers' files spread across t
18 matches
Mail list logo
