Re: [PATCH] Recommend correct way to submit new version of the patches.

[Subodh Nijsure <snijsure@grid-net.com>]

Hello Rob,

On 04/26/2012 09:43 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 04/25/2012 04:51 PM, Subodh Nijsure wrote:
>> Russell King suggested proper way to submit new versions of the patches.
>> See http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-April/096236.html
>> Modify SubmittingPatches to summerize that recommendation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Subodh Nijsure<snijsure@grid-net.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/SubmittingPatches |   12 ++++++++++++
>>   1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> index 4468ce2..4b166a4 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
>> @@ -579,6 +579,18 @@ use diffstat options "-p 1 -w 70" so that filenames are listed from
>>   the top of the kernel source tree and don't use too much horizontal
>>   space (easily fit in 80 columns, maybe with some indentation).
>>
>> +Please don't thread the posting of a new version of the patches to
>> +the previous posting of the older version.
> I prefer documentation emphasize "Do X" rather than "Don't do X".
>
>> In other words, the
>> +initial summary mail for Vn should not be threaded to the Vn-1
>> +series,
> They should instead be in reply to some _other_ random message?
>
>> and the individual patches for Vn should only be threaded
>> +to the initial summary mail for Vn.
> They can be threaded to more than one thing at a time?
>
>> +This is to avoid one massive
>> +thread for a proposed patch.
>> +
>> +If you wish to provide a direct reference back to a previous thread,
>> +please do so via URLs into archives, or providing the message id or
>> +exact subject of the previous series in the new summary message body.
> If you're going to give the subject, give the date it was posted.
>
>> +But please don't thread each version to the previous version!
> Repeating your topic sentence with an exclamation point at the end
> doesn't really help matters here.
>
> Would you like me to take a stab at wordsmithing this? Something like:
>
>    Each patch series should ideally start with a 0/X summary message
>    explaining the purpose of the series, with each Y/X message posted as
>    a reply to that summary.
>
>    Post each new version of a patch series as its own thread. This avoids
>    unmanageably long threads and burying new activity in old threads
>    where it's less likely to be noticed. To reference a previous series,
>    give a URL to a web archive, or provide the message ID, or the
>    subject line and date of the previous posting.
>
> (The existing context doesn't even mention 0/5 summary messages, and the
> hunk about "When you submit or resubmit" is up at line 101 rather than
> down in the 580's...)
I struggled with putting those two paragraph up at line 101 or in 
section that describes canonical patch format, decided on the later.

Never been good at word-smithing.
I have struggled with how does one submit patch reversions and Russell 
King described it very well on arm-linux mailing list and I thought we 
should capture this in documentation to help others that are just 
getting started with the process. Do you want me to submit v2 or you 
have it?

Regards,
/Subodh