From: Peter Foley <pefoley2@verizon.net>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] kbuild: move scripts/basic/docproc.c to scripts/docproc.c
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:15:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DBB469F.50804@verizon.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110429160212.6662c08a.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
On 4/29/2011 7:02 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:00:09 +0200 Michal Marek wrote:
>
>> On 30.4.2011 00:46, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:38:12 -0400 Peter Foley wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patchset moves scripts/basic/docproc to scripts/docproc.
>>>> This causes docproc to only be built for *doc targets rather than every
>>>> time the kernel is compiled.
>>>>
>>>> Patches also attached as requested by Michal Marek.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's disappointing (the attachments). Why was this requested?
>>>
>>> See Documentation/CodingStyle, section 7:
>>>
>>> "No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text."
>>
>> and a couple of lines later:
>> "Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask
>> you to re-send them using MIME."
>>
>> Which is exactly what happened here - the patches had missing or excess
>> leading space and in some cases a context line was missing. So instead
>> of manually reconstructing the patches, I asked Peter to resend them as
>> attachments.
>
> OK, thanks for explaining.
>
>> BUT - I didn't request to split this patch into seven pieces. Splitting
>> patches into smaller parts is desired, but each part has to be self
>> contained and not break stuff when the later parts are not applied. So
>> when moving a .c file, then the corespoding Makefile changes need to be
>> contained in the same patch. No need to resend the patch now, I'll fold
>> the patches into one again, but please consider this next time.
>
> Yes, a few of them could be merged IMO.
>
>>> Instead, the saved file contains lines like
>>> this (below) and each patch 2 times (inline and attachment).
>>
>> Yeah, only sending the attachment would be better in this case.
>
> agreed.
>
> ---
> ~Randy
> *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
Thanks for all the feedback.
I'll try to take it into account in the future.
Thanks,
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-29 23:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-29 22:38 [PATCH V2 0/7] kbuild: move scripts/basic/docproc.c to scripts/docproc.c Peter Foley
2011-04-29 22:46 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-04-29 23:00 ` Michal Marek
2011-04-29 23:02 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-04-29 23:15 ` Peter Foley [this message]
2011-04-29 23:09 ` Peter Foley
2011-04-29 23:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-04-30 0:30 ` Peter Foley
2011-04-29 23:22 ` Arnaud Lacombe
2011-04-29 22:59 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-04-29 23:00 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-04-29 23:04 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-05-02 20:55 ` Michal Marek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DBB469F.50804@verizon.net \
--to=pefoley2@verizon.net \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox