diff for duplicates of <1516829760.3073.43.camel@HansenPartnership.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 2624950..5ad1834 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -32,3 +32,9 @@ to describe their experiences and for us to look at process based solutions using our shared experience. James + +-- +To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in +the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, +see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . +Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a> diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 7382de1..c66999f 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -43,6 +43,12 @@ "to describe their experiences and for us to look at process based\n" "solutions using our shared experience.\n" "\n" - James + "James\n" + "\n" + "--\n" + "To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in\n" + "the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,\n" + "see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .\n" + "Don't email: <a href=mailto:\"dont@kvack.org\"> email@kvack.org </a>" -96c1632fcf3f9ca971d550cf8d4e5fdd2187c54175e5058233a1390a01c468e1 +51847598eacdd9b922ead3fad68e5a40dea5c38863a0119a611643b6d4e0993c
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt index 2624950..e812cf2 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N2/1.txt @@ -8,12 +8,12 @@ On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 11:20 -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > > 1. Patch Submission Process > > > > Today we don't have a uniform patch submission process across -> > Storage, Filesystems and MM. The question is should we (or at -> > least should we adhere to some minimal standards). The standard +> > Storage, Filesystems and MM.A A The question is should we (or at +> > least should we adhere to some minimal standards).A A The standard > > we've been trying to hold to in SCSI is one review per accepted -> > non-trivial patch. For us, it's useful because it encourages +> > non-trivial patch.A A For us, it's useful because it encourages > > driver writers to review each other's patches rather than just -> > posting and then complaining their patch hasn't gone in. I can +> > posting and then complaining their patch hasn't gone in.A A I can > > certainly think of a couple of bugs I've had to chase in mm where > > the underlying patches would have benefited from review, so I'd > > like to discuss making the one review per non-trival patch our base @@ -25,10 +25,16 @@ On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 11:20 -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: The pushback in your session was mandating reviews would mean slowing patch acceptance or possibly causing the dropping of patches that -couldn't get reviewed. Michal did say that XFS didn't have the +couldn't get reviewed. A Michal did say that XFS didn't have the problem, however there not being XFS people in the room, discussion -stopped there. Having this as a plenary would allow people outside mm +stopped there. A Having this as a plenary would allow people outside mm to describe their experiences and for us to look at process based solutions using our shared experience. James + +-- +To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in +the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, +see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . +Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a> diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 7382de1..67a9059 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -20,12 +20,12 @@ "> > 1. Patch Submission Process\n" "> > \n" "> > Today we don't have a uniform patch submission process across\n" - "> > Storage, Filesystems and MM.\302\240\302\240The question is should we (or at\n" - "> > least should we adhere to some minimal standards).\302\240\302\240The standard\n" + "> > Storage, Filesystems and MM.A A The question is should we (or at\n" + "> > least should we adhere to some minimal standards).A A The standard\n" "> > we've been trying to hold to in SCSI is one review per accepted\n" - "> > non-trivial patch.\302\240\302\240For us, it's useful because it encourages\n" + "> > non-trivial patch.A A For us, it's useful because it encourages\n" "> > driver writers to review each other's patches rather than just\n" - "> > posting and then complaining their patch hasn't gone in.\302\240\302\240I can\n" + "> > posting and then complaining their patch hasn't gone in.A A I can\n" "> > certainly think of a couple of bugs I've had to chase in mm where\n" "> > the underlying patches would have benefited from review, so I'd\n" "> > like to discuss making the one review per non-trival patch our base\n" @@ -37,12 +37,18 @@ "\n" "The pushback in your session was mandating reviews would mean slowing\n" "patch acceptance or possibly causing the dropping of patches that\n" - "couldn't get reviewed. \302\240Michal did say that XFS didn't have the\n" + "couldn't get reviewed. A Michal did say that XFS didn't have the\n" "problem, however there not being XFS people in the room, discussion\n" - "stopped there. \302\240Having this as a plenary would allow people outside mm\n" + "stopped there. A Having this as a plenary would allow people outside mm\n" "to describe their experiences and for us to look at process based\n" "solutions using our shared experience.\n" "\n" - James + "James\n" + "\n" + "--\n" + "To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in\n" + "the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,\n" + "see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .\n" + "Don't email: <a href=mailto:\"dont@kvack.org\"> email@kvack.org </a>" -96c1632fcf3f9ca971d550cf8d4e5fdd2187c54175e5058233a1390a01c468e1 +5a74c78a53446bceaf81ff4f36a38abd666bb6ff6814ec5c420eeda2f12d7eef
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.