From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.217]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.2334.1601754199749146808 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2020 12:43:20 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=none, err=permanent DNS error (domain: perches.com, ip: 216.40.44.217, mailfrom: joe@perches.com) Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E911DED; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 19:43:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:599:967:973:982:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1542:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3355:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:4362:4470:4605:5007:6248:6742:6743:7576:7875:7974:9010:9040:9545:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12297:12663:12740:12760:12895:13161:13229:13436:13439:14659:14721:21080:21325:21433:21451:21627:21819:30034:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: loss06_3d0c09b271af X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4162 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.133.149]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 19:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <9ab43333596f08abbbbbf1fa8cdf1ded4b65af2a.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] use semicolons rather than commas to separate statements From: Joe Perches To: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Julia Lawall Cc: Mark Brown , tools@linux.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jerome Brunet , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, David Lechner , Valdis =?UTF-8?Q?Kl=C4=93tnieks?= , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, Martin Blumenstingl , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Neil Armstrong Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 12:43:13 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201003193137.z2bpwzlz5a66kkex@chatter.i7.local> References: <1601233948-11629-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> <160132172369.55460.9237357219623604216.b4-ty@kernel.org> <20200929113745.GB4799@sirena.org.uk> <20201001110150.GA6715@sirena.org.uk> <20201003191501.o56tqq63d2buq5ox@chatter.i7.local> <20201003193137.z2bpwzlz5a66kkex@chatter.i7.local> User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.4-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 15:31 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 09:18:51PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > There seems to be some mismatch between b4's use of the > > > > cover letter to a patch series and what maintainers that > > > > apply a subset of the patches in the patch series. > > > > > > > > The merge description shows the entire patch series as > > > > applied, but the actual merge is only a subset of the > > > > series. > > > > > > > > Can this be improved in b4? > > > > > > So, the following logic should be applied: > > > > > > - if the entire series was applied, reply to 0/n > > > - if a subset only is applied, reply to each n/n of the patch that was > > > cherry-picked out of the series > > > > > > Is that an accurate summary? > > > > That sounds good. > > I'm worried that this can get unwieldy for series of 50 patches where 49 > got applied. Would the following be better: > > ----- > From: ... > To: ... > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] use semicolons... > > On Sun... > > These patches... > > > > [...] > > A subset of these patches was applied to > > https://... > > Thanks! > > [5/18] regmap: debugfs: > commit: > > (etc) > ----- > > In other words, we: > > - specifically say that it's a subset > - instead of just enumerating the number of patches that were applied, > as is currently the case ([1/1]) we list the exact numbers out of the > posted series (e.g. [5/18]) > > I think this is a better solution than potentially flooding everyone > with 49 emails. I think it would be better to reply individually as the likelihood that the maintainer skips just a few patches of a large series is relatively low. It's more likely for a treewide or multi-subsystem patch set for a maintainer to apply just a single one or a selected few of the patches and individual replies make it much easier to determine which ones were applied. thanks, Joe