From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:01:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bsdimp.com ([199.45.160.85]:23281 "EHLO harmony.bsdimp.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S28591454AbYB1QBQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:01:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m1SG0PD4061282; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:00:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:00:58 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20080228.090058.-126817608.imp@bsdimp.com> To: ralf@linux-mips.org Cc: daniel.j.laird@nxp.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Move arch/mips/philips to arch/mips/nxp From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20080228094240.GD2750@linux-mips.org> References: <64660ef00802270250sae0cd4of9512f13f400dfc6@mail.gmail.com> <20080228094240.GD2750@linux-mips.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 18318 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: imp@bsdimp.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips In message: <20080228094240.GD2750@linux-mips.org> Ralf Baechle writes: : The usual pointer here: http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/The_perfect_patch Are the references to BitKeeper still relevant here? >> Bear in mind that the Subject: of your email becomes a >> globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the >> way into BitKeeper. The Subject: may later be used in developer ------------^^^^^^^^^ >> discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to google >> for the patch's Subject: to read discussion regarding that patch. and >> Do not refer to earlier patches when changelogging a new version of >> a patch. It's not very useful to have a bitkeeper changelog which -------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^ >> says "OK, this fixes the things you mentioned yesterday". Each >> iteration of the patch should contain a standalone changelog. This >> implies that you need a patch management system which maintains >> changelogs. See below. and >> Don't bother mentioning what version of the kernel the patch >> applies to ("applies to 2.6.8-rc1"). This is not interesting >> information - once the patch is in bitkeeper, of _course_ it --------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^ >> applied, and it'll probably be merged into a later kernel than the >> one which you wrote it for. Warner