From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] drivers/net/ethernet/micrel/ks8851_mll: Implement basic statistics Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:09:18 -0800 Message-ID: <1359486558.15135.29.camel@joe-AO722> References: <20130129.135523.2248566447781665296.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David.Choi@Micrel.Com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ping.Doong@Micrel.Com, bhutchings@solarflare.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:39368 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754695Ab3A2TJU (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:09:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130129.135523.2248566447781665296.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 13:55 -0500, David Miller wrote: > Do not post new versions of patches as replies to other emails or > threads, always use fresh, new list postings to post a patch. I think replying with In-Reply-To: context is better than starting a new thread without that In-Reply-To. If the subject changes with version number, what difference does it make? Is there some case that patchwork doesn't handle well?