From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH] aic7xxx bouncing over 4G Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:45:54 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20021221174554.GA9703@redhat.com> References: <200212210012.gBL0Cng21338@eng2.beaverton.ibm.com> <176730000.1040430221@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <20021221002940.GM25000@holomorphy.com> <190380000.1040432350@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <20021221013500.GN25000@holomorphy.com> <223910000.1040435985@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <20021221085510.A25881@infradead.org> <4093022704.1040484612@aslan.scsiguy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4093022704.1040484612@aslan.scsiguy.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , William Lee Irwin III , Janet Morgan , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 08:30:12AM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > revision. I just do it as a single CSET with the comments dispersed > into the individual files that the comments apply to. Which is perfectly acceptable IMHO. There is no reason that a cset need document all the details when the file logs already do. A cset need only indicate what basic work is being done and maybe a list of files in the cset. Doing a bk changes -v gets the file comments as well for those people that want them. I actually like the individual file comments part of the cset setup. It's what my preferred use is when I'm making my own patches. Make the cset have a summary of the major changes, then let each file have it's own detail change information. -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606