From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: palmas: add input supply names Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:56:16 -0600 Message-ID: <5149EA30.8020302@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1363598989-25112-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <20130320123128.GM28775@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5149B19E.90400@nvidia.com> <5149DEB5.7000709@wwwdotorg.org> <20130320163833.GT28775@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <5149E6F2.5070205@wwwdotorg.org> <20130320165227.GU28775@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130320165227.GU28775-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Laxman Dewangan , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Stephen Warren , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "lrg-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 03/20/2013 10:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:42:26AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 03/20/2013 10:38 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:07:17AM -0600, Stephen Warren >>> wrote: >>>> On 03/20/2013 06:54 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > >>>>> I generally send a patches on single git-send command git >>>>> send-emal --to=ldewangan-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org 0000.patch 0001.patch > >>>> Don't do that; send *.patch. If you don't, then patches 2..n >>>> don't end up being "in-reply-to" patch 1, so they won't show >>>> up as a single email thread. > >>> The two should be equivalent (though the glob is much easier >>> to type)? The result of the globbing ought to be what Laxman is >>> typing by hand assuming that he's getting the order correct. > >> If you send *.patch at once, git send-email adds an in-reply-to >> header to the email which sets up the threading. If you send the >> patches 1-by-1, this header isn't added, since git send-email >> doesn't have a clue what message ID it chose for patch 1. Unless >> you pass the --in-reply-to command-line option, that is. > > Indeed - I think you may have quoted the wrong bit of Laxman's > mail there? The bit you're replying to is doing it as a single > command, though he did talk about doing this in multiple commands > elsewhere in his mail. Oh right yes. I'd seen 0000.patch and not that there were multiple entries in the command-line that listed (I assume) all the files. Sorry for the noise.