From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:27:38 +0000 Subject: Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body Message-Id: <559D416A.7050601@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <559B85CD.6040200@users.sourceforge.net> <559BBDD6.7040808@users.sourceforge.net> <559BFB19.2080700@users.sourceforge.net> <559CCC9D.8050606@users.sourceforge.net> <559CED4C.1080402@users.sourceforge.net> <20150708150335.GB20551@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20150708150335.GB20551@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Theodore Ts'o , Julian Calaby , Frans Klaver , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Chris Park , Dean Lee , Johnny Kim , Rachel Kim , linux-wireless , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , Julia Lawall , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML > 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 of a more precise commit timestamp together with an appropriate author mail address for my update suggestions. Do you reject any more such message field overrides? Regards, Markus