From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:15:06 +0100 Message-ID: <200801120415.07176.ak@suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:47279 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756101AbYALDPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:15:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Greg KH , Andrew Morton , rjw@sisk.pl, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@suse.cz, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de > The real problem is that our current email workflow patterns don't > provide a standardized way for maintainers to tell when a new patch > submission is meant to override or replace an earlier submission (or > even a set of earlier submissions). Does anybody have some suggestions > for a good way to do this? The versioning approach pioneered by Christoph Lameter seems to work reasonably well. If you post a new version increase a version number and add it with "vXXX" to the Subject. Also add a short change log between versions at the bottom; e.g. v1->v2: .... etc. Then it is always clear what is the latest'n'greatest. -Andi