Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755015AbYHAKgu (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:36:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751371AbYHAKgm (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:36:42 -0400 Received: from hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de ([141.43.120.68]:43205 "EHLO hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751335AbYHAKgl (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:36:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4892E703.8060507@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:35:47 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080702 SeaMonkey/1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Randy.Dunlap" CC: Daniel Barkalow , Jonathan Corbet , Alex Chiang , LKML , Amanda McPherson , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] A development process document References: <20080729143015.0f79cf37@bike.lwn.net> <20080731062305.GA18070@ldl.fc.hp.com> <20080731101738.1bf4281c@bike.lwn.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2598 Lines: 55 Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:23:05 -0600 >> > Alex Chiang wrote: >> > > > +If you have a significant series of patches, it is customary to >> > > > send an +introductory description as part zero. In general, the >> > > > second and >> > > >> > > This directly conflicts with akpm's advice: >> > > >> > > http://www.zipworld.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt >> > > >> > > Section 6(b). >> > >> > Interesting; Andrew didn't mention that in his review. I think the intro >> > postings can be very useful in understanding a patch series as a whole. >> > Maybe I'll put in something about how anything which should be in the >> > changelogs needs to go with the actual patches. >> >> If you include a [0/N], it's a cover letter, not a changelog portion. It >> can be a useful way of providing context to reviewers as to the intended >> total effect. Each of the patches should make sense standalone, but it's >> not always clear from the individual patches what the total benefit is, >> and a 0/N that explains can be worthwhile (and you'd want to make that >> announcement to the mailing list, but not get it into the history). > > but.. but Andrew often has to take part(s) of #0/N and add them to the > changelog(s) to make the changelog(s) meaningful. I.e., someone skimped > on what should have been in the changelog(s). That would not be a problem with the cover posting, it would be a problem with the changelogs. The same applies if the respective information is put below the '---' delimiter line in the individual patch postings. So just remember that changelogs need to be sufficiently comprehensive even when read standalone, out of the context of the series. BTW, I always like to see the -> combined diffstat <- of the whole patch series in 0/N cover postings. For this reason alone, a cover posting is IMO generally recommendable for series of more than three or four patches. Especially if the reason for posting is a request for review rather than transfer to a maintainer. I think Andrew's advice in tpp is very valid in order to create "the perfect patch", but not really how to post "the perfect review request". -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- =--- ----= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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/