From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/19] lpfc 10.4.8000.0: Update lpfc version to driver version 10.4.8000.0 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:31:43 -0400 Message-ID: <5409BB3F.6040205@emulex.com> References: <1409763288.12357.0.camel@myfc17> <20140905053532.GA10457@infradead.org> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cmexedge1.ext.emulex.com ([138.239.224.99]:9818 "EHLO CMEXEDGE1.ext.emulex.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756934AbaIENcR (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:32:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140905053532.GA10457@infradead.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org no problem, although if these rules were published, I would have tried to do so earlier. although - I do have a couple of questions. On 9/5/2014 1:35 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've applied the series, but for next time can you make sure to follow > the proper format: > > - remove the version number in every subject line yeah - it's long > - patches you resend from an original author should be unchanged, > except that the From: lines moves into the mail body So.. you do not want me to resolve merge conflicts or fuzz before posting ? note: content did not change - only merged into my git tree and re-cut them. > - patches that you send on with your maintainer hat on should be > signed off by you, not just reviewed. ok - but I guess I had a different interpretation of the meaning for signed-by. I thought it conveyed an ownership and originality of authorship of the content posted. As such, if I didn't contribute anything in the patch, I shouldn't give anything other than a reviewed-by indicating approval. > > not strictly required, but making my life a lot easier would be if all > patches are sent by reply to the original mail. git-send-email does > this, and it seems like the Emulex division supporting be2scsi has found > a way to use it with the corporate email servers. yep - although different countries have different logistics. But, I should be able to get around this. -- james