From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:10:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:27343 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S28591555AbYB1QKt (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:10:49 +0000 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1SGAmmp010745; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:10:48 GMT Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m1SGAl0c010744; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:10:47 GMT Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:10:47 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: daniel.j.laird@nxp.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: Move arch/mips/philips to arch/mips/nxp Message-ID: <20080228161047.GA10704@linux-mips.org> References: <64660ef00802270250sae0cd4of9512f13f400dfc6@mail.gmail.com> <20080228094240.GD2750@linux-mips.org> <20080228.090058.-126817608.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080228.090058.-126817608.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) 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: 18319 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: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:00:58AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Are the references to BitKeeper still relevant here? Vaguely. A while ago bk was in common use in the Linux community. The licenses for bitkeeper were withdrawn around April 2005 so it's probably time to remove them. > >> 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. Akpm wrote that. I wonder if he's got an updated version of this. Ralf