From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:35115 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752254AbcBWAoF (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:44:05 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aY15A-00085E-57 for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:44:04 +0100 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:44:04 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:44:04 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs-progs: copy functionality of btrfs-debug-tree to inspect-internal subcommand Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 00:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1456152590-24601-1-git-send-email-fougner89@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Alexander Fougner posted on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:49:49 +0100 as excerpted: > The long-term plan is to merge the features of standalone tools into the > btrfs binary, reducing the number of shipped binaries. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Fougner > --- Typically, V2+ also includes a short, often one-line, description of what changed between versions. This helps reviewers and others who may have reviewed/tested previous versions, or who may simply be interested in following the evolution of the patch as it improves toward acceptance and merging, since it avoids everyone having to do the diffs for themselves. It's also useful to others who may be considering submitting their own patches, since it can give them hints on avoiding some of the same initial mistakes and thus avoiding a round-trip or two, as they may be able to correct some of the issues before they post their patches the first time (or the second time, if they notice the practice of including the changes description on existing patch revision posts and include it themselves without anyone having to ask). =:^) Unfortunately, while the subject says v2, I don't see any such changes since v1 description, here. =:^( There's many examples on the list if you need one. Here's a link to the first one I happened to find, a good example of how it can look on slightly more advanced patch series of several patches, once they've gone thru several revisions. (Click the topic link on the left to see the individual patches, which here don't include individual changelogs as they're in the 00/19 post.) http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/53306 -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman