From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6390734400098664448 X-Received: by 10.129.174.5 with SMTP id m5mr2464783ywh.58.1488009983953; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:06:23 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: outreachy-kernel@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.9.185 with SMTP id q54ls70180otd.11.gmail; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:06:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.129.68.35 with SMTP id r35mr2378686ywa.143.1488009983663; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.215.6 with SMTP id o6msoig; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:01:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.3.231 with SMTP id f94mr2453496otf.103.1488009708674; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:01:48 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com. [66.111.4.28]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x124si76925ywb.1.2017.02.25.00.01.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Feb 2017 00:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 66.111.4.28 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of greg@kroah.com) client-ip=66.111.4.28; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@messagingengine.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 66.111.4.28 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of greg@kroah.com) smtp.mailfrom=greg@kroah.com Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9A820757; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:01:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:01:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=c0wqOlO+07OAbrkwkuynFO0IEns=; b=L9bh30cZfZl3cDUPVnrZ W48CTMFlA0rTPbceKVdriHIIyxizCJ1Pev10GHeJt73Fa7QggkmbEnbF0tTn/cBM AP/0GugqVmO77ZXkORnFvvGsrNvcGbBsl+VqtSvvVP5jFe3E+V6/4JuiIyPeoXOB 0Y3Xa5b6JkMghKeldWnvJt0= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: E4mNNholaFtYu5ZR6hspCwuLVMGfvmlX4SIexOBIZYTc 1488009707 Received: from localhost (unknown [78.192.101.3]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EAC047E354; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 03:01:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:01:20 +0100 From: Greg KH To: SIMRAN SINGHAL Cc: outreachy-kernel Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: Caught up on Outreachy patches Message-ID: <20170225080120.GA2054@kroah.com> References: <20170224175315.GA23075@kroah.com> <605876fe-cfb0-4389-9ca9-aa88a3b4e1ea@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <605876fe-cfb0-4389-9ca9-aa88a3b4e1ea@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:35:58PM -0800, SIMRAN SINGHAL wrote: > > > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 11:23:23 PM UTC+5:30, gregkh wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've now caught up on all submitted outreachy kernel patches. > > So if you have not gotten an email from my automated patch scripts > saying your patch has been applied, consider it rejected or lost. > Please resend anything that you think is ready to be merged. > > > � � Greg, as for some of my patches I didn't get reply. > � � So, now how am I supposed to send them i.e as next version > � � of that patch or as a completely new patch. Very odd quoting style, please fix up your email client to do this properly. Resend anything I missed as a new version of the patch, saying you have fixed up whatever kept it from being accepted the first time (if I had commented on it), or just a 'resend' if I happened to miss it. But first rebase your patches on my staging-testing branch to ensure that they do work properly, otherwise you are just wasting time redoing something I will have to reject again :) > � � And those patches also include some patches which are acked by� > � � Julia, so sending them as completely new patch seems pointless. Nope, that's just how it goes, but keep Julia's ack on it when you resend. > � � So, I request you to please explain how we are supposed to send them > � � and sorry for asking this, but can you please explain the reason of, if > � � those patches are present in the mailing list then why you are calling > � � them lost. I don't know, I need specifics here. Did I say something about them, or just ignore them completly? Did I say something like "redo all of your outstanding patches"? Remember, I get over 1000 emails a day, and just had to review over 500 patches submitted for the staging subsystem in the past 5 days. I can't remember anything specifically, and neither could anyone else with that kind of workload :) thanks, greg k-h