Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761161AbWLINUx (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Dec 2006 08:20:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761150AbWLINUx (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Dec 2006 08:20:53 -0500 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:33191 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760847AbWLINUw (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Dec 2006 08:20:52 -0500 X-Originating-Ip: 74.102.209.62 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 08:16:37 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: Tim Schmielau cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: why are some of my patches being credited to other "authors"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1165663793.1103.127.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-16.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1315 Lines: 38 On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Tim Schmielau wrote: > i wrote: > > but given that i'm trying to follow the kernel guidelines and keep > > each submission as a logically-related chunk, in many cases, i > > have to wait for one patch to be applied before i can submit the > > next one. and, at the moment, there's no way of knowing what's > > going on. > > Well, you can send out a patch series: > [patch 01/02] Prepare foo for blah > [patch 02/02] Apply blah to foo > Ideally you would finish the patch description for patch 02 with something > like > > --- > This patch depends on [patch 01/02] Prepare foo for blah ... snip ... wait a minute. that's not what i've understood all this time as the rationale for a multi-part patch -- to show dependency. certainly, that's not what you read in "SubmittingPatches": "If one patch depends on another patch in order for a change to be complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X" in your patch description." that doesn't say anything about using the multi-part notation. are you sure about this? rday - 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/