From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nd215.dnsexit.com ([64.182.102.215]:39128 "EHLO box7.911domain.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934069Ab1D2XQ2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:16:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4DBB469F.50804@verizon.net> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:15:43 -0400 From: Peter Foley Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] kbuild: move scripts/basic/docproc.c to scripts/docproc.c References: <4DBB3DD4.9000000@verizon.net> <20110429154649.848f9ba8.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <4DBB42F9.7070407@suse.cz> <20110429160212.6662c08a.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20110429160212.6662c08a.rdunlap@xenotime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Michal Marek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On 4/29/2011 7:02 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:00:09 +0200 Michal Marek wrote: > >> On 30.4.2011 00:46, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:38:12 -0400 Peter Foley wrote: >>> >>>> This patchset moves scripts/basic/docproc to scripts/docproc. >>>> This causes docproc to only be built for *doc targets rather than every >>>> time the kernel is compiled. >>>> >>>> Patches also attached as requested by Michal Marek. >>> >>> >>> That's disappointing (the attachments). Why was this requested? >>> >>> See Documentation/CodingStyle, section 7: >>> >>> "No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text." >> >> and a couple of lines later: >> "Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask >> you to re-send them using MIME." >> >> Which is exactly what happened here - the patches had missing or excess >> leading space and in some cases a context line was missing. So instead >> of manually reconstructing the patches, I asked Peter to resend them as >> attachments. > > OK, thanks for explaining. > >> BUT - I didn't request to split this patch into seven pieces. Splitting >> patches into smaller parts is desired, but each part has to be self >> contained and not break stuff when the later parts are not applied. So >> when moving a .c file, then the corespoding Makefile changes need to be >> contained in the same patch. No need to resend the patch now, I'll fold >> the patches into one again, but please consider this next time. > > Yes, a few of them could be merged IMO. > >>> Instead, the saved file contains lines like >>> this (below) and each patch 2 times (inline and attachment). >> >> Yeah, only sending the attachment would be better in this case. > > agreed. > > --- > ~Randy > *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** Thanks for all the feedback. I'll try to take it into account in the future. Thanks, Peter