From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:41:59 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] Remove unneeded time() declaration. In-Reply-To: <1488389181.2866.256.camel@caviumnetworks.com> References: <1488317719-29809-1-git-send-email-sellcey@caviumnetworks.com> <20170301124620.GA32207@rei.lan> <1488389181.2866.256.camel@caviumnetworks.com> Message-ID: <20170302123608.GA30493@rei> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > I updated the comments and resent the patch using format-patch and > send-email. ??I am not sure if that is the right way to do it but I > don't see any way to use format-patch/send-email to resend the patch as > a response to your email so I sent it as a new email/thread. ??The > inability (as far as I know) to update the patch and send it as a > response to an existing email thread is one of the reasons I am not a > huge fan of those tools but if that is how you want it done, I will do > it that way. The usuall way is to send new version of a patchset as new thread, ideally adding vN to the subject where N is number that increases with each iteration. And yes, the git-send-email is tailored to specific workflow so as far as the workflow works for particular project, everything works great. But the same goes for GitHub, I do not like the workflow their tools are tailored for, but I still use them when needed. And quite possibly I do not like it since I'm still much more used to sending patches by email... Anyway all that matters in the end is that patches gets applied :-). -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz