Re: Kernel SCM saga..

Magnus Damm
2005-04-07T18:07:01Z

On Apr 7, 2005 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> So my prefernce is _overwhelmingly_ for the format that Andrew uses (which
> is partly explained by the fact that I am used to it, but also by the fact
> that I've asked for Andrew to make trivial changes to match my usage).
>
> That canonical format is:
>
> Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [ :] <explanation>
>
> together with the first line of the body being a
>
> From: Original Author <origa@email.com>
>
> followed by an empty line and then the body of the explanation.
>
> After the body of the explanation comes the "Signed-off-by:" lines, and
> then a simple "---" line, and below that comes the diffstat of the patch
> and then the patch itself.

While specifying things, wouldn't it be useful to have a line
containing tags that specifies if the patch contains new features, a
bug fix or a high-priority security fix? Then that information could
be used to find patches for the sucker-tree.

/ magnus