From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CC175D07 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:24:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t68FOSEC028891; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:24:28 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Dg9rL0SBRgvg; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:24:28 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t68FOFgI028878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:24:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1436369055.9778.7.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: "Shen, Cathy" Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:24:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <9CF54C48BF4DE04F9D8FBEB712F28E401106CCF7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1435046066-2894-1-git-send-email-junhuix.zhang@intel.com> <9CF54C48BF4DE04F9D8FBEB712F28E401106CCF7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] testimage: Support full TC path such oeqa.runtime.pnp.get_memory_size in TEST_SUITES X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:24:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 01:52 +0000, Shen, Cathy wrote: > Are we OK with this patch? To be honest, I was a bit confused as it said 1/2 and there never was a 2/2 until a week later and I didn't connect the two. For future reference, the correct way to reference bugzilla in the commit message is: [YOCTO #7834] The 2/2 patch also had no explanation of what it did in the commit message body. I've tweaked the commit messages for these two and queued in master-next. Cheers, Richard