Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:27:38PM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote: Note also that some maintainers have work flow that deliberately smash the date (i.e., because they are using a system such as guilt), so if you are depending on the submitted timestamp, it's going to break on you.

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

Hi Markus, On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:09 PM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: There's a file in the documentation directory of the kernel tree describing submitting patches and email client setup. Read them both, I read this information several times. do what they say

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:05:53PM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote: If multiple people are submitting identical changes, then the one that is applied is the one the maintainer sees first, which will most likely be determined by which one hit their inbox / list first. Nobody is going to look at

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

Note also that some maintainers have work flow that deliberately smash the date (i.e., because they are using a system such as guilt), so if you are depending on the submitted timestamp, it's going to break on you. Thanks for your hint. I am just trying to offer the possibility for the reuse

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

There's a file in the documentation directory of the kernel tree describing submitting patches and email client setup. Read them both, I read this information several times. do what they say without anything extra. Do you see any special consequences if a bit of extra functionality is

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

Hi Markus, On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:46 PM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: Is there truly no way to simplify that process? I see some software development possibilities which could improve the communication with high volume mailing lists. You shouldn't need any

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

From: Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:56:57 +0200 Why is this in the body of the email? Does the canonical patch format support to preserve specific details about a shown commit by specification of fields like Date and From in the message body?

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

I can't remember ever changing or explicitly preserving the commit date. I don't think I care enough. Would any more software developers and maintainers like to share their experiences around such details? When do commit timestamps become relevant as a documentation item for contribution

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

Hi Markus, On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:15 AM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: I can't remember ever changing or explicitly preserving the commit date. I don't think I care enough. Would any more software developers and maintainers like to share their experiences around

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

I think that as far as these kernel mailing lists are concerned, the date of the update suggestion is the date on which you submitted the patch, rather than the date you originally committed it to your local tree. I imagine that there are committers who would like to keep corresponding

Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, SF Markus Elfring elfr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote: I think that as far as these kernel mailing lists are concerned, the date of the update suggestion is the date on which you submitted the patch, rather than the date you originally committed it to your