From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3 RESEND] ASoC: da7210: Add support for line input and mic Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:58:15 +0000 Message-ID: <20120102125815.GI4300@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1325505952.12508.12.camel@matrix> <20120102120024.GH2899@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1325506569.12508.15.camel@matrix> <20120102121117.GI2899@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1325508002.12508.30.camel@matrix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com [80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E16103913 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:58:19 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1325508002.12508.30.camel@matrix> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Ashish Chavan Cc: linux-kernel , alsa-devel , lrg , "kuninori.morimoto.gx" , David Dajun Chen List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:10:02PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote: > I see, I was not aware of this norm. I just thought that not changing > the subject line may help in identifying multiple submissions of the > same patch. No, that's what the human readable portion is for. > BTW, should the version info be also dropped in case if we consider this > as a new, independent patch? Because many of the version increments were > just because of changes in other, earlier patches in the series. Personally I find the versioning information a waste of time in the first place, it just obscures more of the subject line in mail readers. A patch is going to be considered on its merits no matter how many times it's been sent before, having a version number is often just depressing (as with those PMIC patches).