notmuch/test/corpora/lkml/cur/1382298793.003971:2,

107 lines
5.1 KiB
Text
Raw Normal View History

From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: rfc: rewrite commit subject line for subsystem
maintainer preference tool
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:07:47 +0000
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <20101117170746.GB19488@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
References: <20101116104921.GL12986@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
<1289919077.28741.50.camel@Joe-Laptop>
<20101116183707.179964dd@schatten.dmk.lab>
<20101116181226.GB26239@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
<20101116203522.65240b18@schatten.dmk.lab>
<20101116195530.GA7523@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>
<20101116122102.86e7e0b9.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
<20101116230126.GB24623@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
<20101117014427.41d85b13@stein>
<alpine.LNX.2.00.1011170150060.7420@pobox.suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
X-From: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Wed Nov 17 18:07:59 2010
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
Envelope-to: glad-alsa-devel-2@m.gmane.org
Received: from alsa0.perex.cz ([212.20.107.51])
by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>)
id 1PIlUD-000436-I4
for glad-alsa-devel-2@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:07:57 +0100
Received: by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id B1000245CE; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:07:54 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on mail1.perex.cz
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled
version=3.2.4
Received: from alsa0.perex.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35471037EC;
Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:07:52 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Delivered-To: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Received: by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 4EE8F1037EC; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:07:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
[80.75.67.52]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A16245CE
for <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:07:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rakim.wolfsonmicro.main (lumison.wolfsonmicro.com
[87.246.78.27])
by opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E3591147AC;
Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:07:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from broonie by rakim.wolfsonmicro.main with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <broonie@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main>)
id 1PIlU3-00061C-Bl; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:07:47 +0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1011170150060.7420@pobox.suse.cz>
X-Cookie: Killing turkeys causes winter.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-BeenThere: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Alsa-devel mailing list for ALSA developers -
http://www.alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel.alsa-project.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
<mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
<mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1064007>
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:53:35AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > Why should we codify our conventions in MAINTAINERS to accommodate the
> > specific problem of virtually a _single_ patch author?
It seems to be the way we're heading in general - look at all the recent
work on MAINTAINERS and get_maintainer.pl. There seems to be a genral
push to make all this stuff automatable.
> Either the maintainer wants the patch. Then he is certainly able to apply
> it no matter the subject line (I personally am getting a lot of patches
> which don't follow the format I am using in my tree ... converting
> Subject: lines is so trivial that I have never felt like bothering anyone
> about it ... it's basically single condition in a shellscript). Or the
It's slightly more than that if you're dealing with more than one area,
and I also find this sort of stuff is a good flag for scrubbing the
patch in greater detail - when patches stand out from a 1000ft visual
overview there's a fair chance that there's other issues so if people
regularly submit good patches that have only cosmetic issues I find it's
worth guiding them away from that.
> maintainer doesn't feel like the patch is worth it, and then the
> subject-line format really doesn't matter.
In this case if I don't apply it it's likely to end up going in via your
tree and then I'll still have to deal with the merge conflicts which are
more annoying.