Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753263AbaLJBGn (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 20:06:43 -0500 Received: from ns.horizon.com ([71.41.210.147]:32178 "HELO ns.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752366AbaLJBGm (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 20:06:42 -0500 Date: 9 Dec 2014 20:06:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20141210010638.11895.qmail@ns.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch/nios2 for v3.19 Cc: arnd@arndb.de, lftan@altera.com, linux@horizon.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.horizon.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas Gleixner wrote: > It's a bit sad that all the reviewed/acked-by information which has > been sent throughout the review process is completely lost. Well, in the case here where the ack comes in after the pull request, obviously only the merger (Linus) can add it, but for older ones, it seems like an obvious git feature request to have comments in the annotated tag automatically copied to the merge commit message draft. That way, the subsystem maintainer could write a branch summary, like the [PATCH 0/n] summaries that are popular, and have it automatically included in the history. That just seems a more sensible place to put things than the pull request e-mail. (Preserving the signed annotated tag object itself is another intriguing possibility, but not only is it a huge format change to create a way for a commit to point to a tag, but I also don't see how to avoid tag name collision problems.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/