From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sound: max98090: Remove executable bit
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:44:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130321184458.GH15926@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1363888393.30275.31.camel@joe-AO722>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:53:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 18:44 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That one needs a bit more taste and thought to work out what's
> > appropraite than can be guaranteed easily with a script, things like
> > working out drive level prefixes for example.
> [perfectly useful git applypatch-msg hook script removed]
No, it really isn't. Have you tried looking at the output? It's not
going to do the right thing for the subject line here for example, never
mind any other cases.
> > No, that's going to leave essentially every commit that needs fixing up
> > still needing manual fixup.
> Then I'm sure that's your job as a maintainer
> to modify whatever patches you get to suit your
> taste.
One of the things I'd really expect that a frequent submitter of trivial
patches would be doing is to make an effort to improve the quality of
what is being sent. If it's at the point where you're sending a lot of
patches and it's more effort to apply them than to review them there's a
problem.
This is something that generally causes no problems for submitters...
[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sound: max98090: Remove executable bit
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:44:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130321184458.GH15926@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1363888393.30275.31.camel@joe-AO722>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:53:13AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-21 at 18:44 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That one needs a bit more taste and thought to work out what's
> > appropraite than can be guaranteed easily with a script, things like
> > working out drive level prefixes for example.
> [perfectly useful git applypatch-msg hook script removed]
No, it really isn't. Have you tried looking at the output? It's not
going to do the right thing for the subject line here for example, never
mind any other cases.
> > No, that's going to leave essentially every commit that needs fixing up
> > still needing manual fixup.
> Then I'm sure that's your job as a maintainer
> to modify whatever patches you get to suit your
> taste.
One of the things I'd really expect that a frequent submitter of trivial
patches would be doing is to make an effort to improve the quality of
what is being sent. If it's at the point where you're sending a lot of
patches and it's more effort to apply them than to review them there's a
problem.
This is something that generally causes no problems for submitters...
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-21 18:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-19 21:58 [PATCH] sound: max98090: Remove executable bit Joe Perches
2013-03-20 9:57 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-20 15:22 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-20 16:36 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-20 22:54 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-21 16:25 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-21 17:16 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-21 17:44 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-21 17:44 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-21 17:53 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-21 18:44 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2013-03-21 18:44 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-21 19:16 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-21 19:16 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-21 20:37 ` Mark Brown
2013-03-21 20:40 ` Joe Perches
2013-03-21 21:26 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130321184458.GH15926@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.