Re: [PATCHSET v2 driver-core-next] kernfs, sysfs, driver-core: implement synchronous self-removal

Greg KH
2014-01-11T23:37:11Z

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 05:52:30PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 01:51:10PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hey, Alan.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:46:10AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > The SUBJECT lines in your patch emails don't mention the version
> > > > number. That is, they just say "[PATCH]", not "[PATCH v2]" or "[PATCH
> > > > v3]". This makes it very difficult for me to tell which messages to
> > > > read.
> > >
> > > Hmm... they're all threaded. I add version tags when posting
> > > incremental patches but usually don't bother with it when posting a
> > > new version of the whole series. After all, some patches are get
> > > updated without explicitly given a new version for refrehses and stuff
> > > so it's not like you can determine everything based on subjects only.
>
> Greg, what do you prefer in this situation?

If the threading is correct, just as Tejun did is the best and easiest
for me to handle, as I can just delete the whole set of old patches and
use the new ones.

> > > > (Reading them in order doesn't work, because my computer mixes up the
> > > > order of messages when it downloads a large bunch from the email
> > > > server. It's kind of annoying...)
> > >
> > > And they aren't threaded?
> >
> > They were all threaded for me, perhaps Alan needs a better email client :)
>
> Undoubtedly I do. My current client is embarassingly old.

There's nothing wrong with using old mail clients, mutt is very old, it
just works really well.

greg k-h