Re: Kernel SCM saga..

Sam Ravnborg
2005-04-07T19:56:06Z

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:00:51PM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:10, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > Do you have it automated to the point where processing emailed patches
> > > involves little more overhead than doing a bk pull?
> >
> > It's more overhead, but not a lot. Especially nice numbered sequences like
> > Andrew sends (where I don't have to manually try to get the dependencies
> > right by trying to figure them out and hope I'm right, but instead just
> > sort by Subject: line)...
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> In that case, a nice refinement is to put the sequence number at the end of
> the subject line so patch sequences don't interleave:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (1 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (2 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (3 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (v2, 1 of 3)
> Subject: [PATCH] Unbork OOM Killer (v2, 2 of 3)

This breaks the rule of a descriptive subject for each patch.
Consider 30 subjetcs telling you "Subject: PCI updates [001/030]
That is not good.

Sam