Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:38:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:38:06 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:36363 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:37:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:35:38 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Rik van Riel cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] rlimit_nproc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > (not yet automated, scripts need to be written ... but the patch > below would be a typical candidate ... are you happy with the way > the description and patch are combined ?) Looks fine, except for the fact that nowhere did it say which kernel version the patch was generated against. Which is often a rather important clue ;) Now if you automate this, I would suggest adding a section in between the explanation and the patch: the "diffstat" output of the patch. It doesn't matter much for this example, because obviously the patch is small enough that just scrolling down shows what's up, but.. I would also suggest that whatever activates the patch asks for a subject-line that is more than 12 characters long ;) Also worthwhile for automation is an md5sum or similar (for verifying that the mail made it though the mail system unscathed). A pgp signature would be even better, of course - especially useful as I suspect it would be good to also cc the things to some patch-list, and having a clear identity on the sender is always a good idea in these things. Linus - 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/