From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] drivers/net/ethernet/micrel/ks8851_mll: Implement basic statistics Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:18:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20130129.141859.1896760176662899961.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20130129.135523.2248566447781665296.davem@davemloft.net> <1359486558.15135.29.camel@joe-AO722> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David.Choi@Micrel.Com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ping.Doong@Micrel.Com, bhutchings@solarflare.com To: joe@perches.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:59188 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753806Ab3A2TTA (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:19:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1359486558.15135.29.camel@joe-AO722> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Joe Perches Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:09:18 -0800 > 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? I just don't want to see patches in the middle of threads, it confuses where it's just an RFC take or a real submission.