From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3099 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187AbYEWO3g (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2008 10:29:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 09:54:16 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Holger Schurig Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Zhu Yi Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/51] iwlwifi driver 05/23 updates Message-ID: <20080523135416.GA19379@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20080523_162940_083152_19011E4C) References: <1211508569-3163-1-git-send-email-yi.zhu@intel.com> <1211510742.7814.121.camel@debian.sh.intel.com> <20080523123204.GA12575@tuxdriver.com> <200805231526.27110.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200805231526.27110.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 03:26:27PM +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: > > It should be fine as-is, especially since you sent each as a > > reply to the previous. > > However, sending LOTS of patches via this way looks funny in > several e-mail clients. Here's an example with KMail: That is true. OTOH, sending them as individual messages (or as replies to a single "0/N" message) can cause them to arrive out of order. In most cases patches sent as a group need to be applied in a certain order. In many cases they will fail to apply, and in others they might apply out of order but not be "bisectable" out of order. IMHO it is a lot easier to deal with the "funny looking" mailbox window than to deal with the issues caused by misordered patches. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com