From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dedekind1@gmail.com (Artem Bityutskiy)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:04:31 +0200
Subject: [GIT PULL] Patches for 2.6.33-rc1
In-Reply-To: <1260355174.13499.8.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1260353349.13499.4.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
	<1260354044.19669.1267.camel@localhost>
	<1260355174.13499.8.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <1260356671.19669.1296.camel@localhost>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 10:39 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 10:20 +0000, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > It is so much helpful when people add proper prefixes to patches, like
> > ARM or something. I wander, do we have a requirement for this somewhere?
> > But please, consider doing this, this makes it easier surfing git-log or
> > gitk info.
> 
> It would be useful, indeed, so I haven't seen an official statement from
> Russell on this (and I usually run gitk on specific directories). 
> 
> Traditionally we used the patch system which was adding a prefix but
> since it cannot cope with a different author from the submitter, I just
> use Git these days (I don't mind either way).

Well, for people like me who did not use the patch system long time
before and did not get accustomed to it, the system is looks very
ancient and sub-standard.

But since I'm not an ARM developer, I do complain about this. If ARM
people find the system good, and the standard lkml-sytle patch exchange
culture does not work for them - fine :)

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (????? ????????)