From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 69/78] ncr5380: Fix whitespace in comments using
 regexp
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:13:53 -0800
Message-ID: <1451859233.4334.74.camel@perches.com>
References: <20160103050501.042035135@telegraphics.com.au>
	 <20160103050520.752909053@telegraphics.com.au>
	 <1451807668.4334.38.camel@perches.com>
	 <20160103141051.2d46c245@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <1451845248.4334.41.camel@perches.com>
	 <20160103212938.2df359ad@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <1451857582.4334.61.camel@perches.com>
	 <20160103220505.7734a879@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160103220505.7734a879@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 22:05 +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:46:22 -0800
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > (using an email address for James that shouldn't bounce)
> > 
> > On Sun, 2016-01-03 at 21:29 +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > > > I would beg to differ. As a tool for understanding the
> > > > > differences as you
> > > > > step through the versions it's invaluable.
> > > > 
> > > > This removes intentional formatting that
> > > > makes reading comments easier.
> > > 
> > > And this matters at the end of the patch series because ?
> > 
> > It removes intentional formatting that makes
> > reading comments easier.
> 
> I'm missing something here - the final result of the merge is completely
> and easily readable. Likewise I can work through it and review the code
> and compare them for the platform I care about (Mac68K)
> 
> > And diff -w still works just fine.
> 
> So you think 70+ patches should be redone because of that, when the end
> result is a clean driver anyway ???

Nope, I think patch 69 should simply not be applied.

I don't know and don't care if patches 70 through 78
depend on any changes made by patch 69.

I'd expect no dependencies exist though.

It doesn't matter much in any case.

cheers, Joe