Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 14:11:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 14:11:51 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:25618 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 14:11:44 -0500 Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:57:11 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Andreas Dilger cc: Jeff Garzik , Patrick Mochel , Subject: Re: [bk patch] Make cardbus compile in -pre4 In-Reply-To: <20020210004748.G9826@lynx.turbolabs.com> 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 Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > What about BK CSET (or regular patch) submissions from non-core > developers? Would you accept CSETs via email if they are preceeded > by a unified diff and explanation? What's the difference here with "bk send"? I have worked with a few BK patches in email, and I have to say that I pretty much detest them. The less I have to work with them, the better, although that may just because I don't yet have the same kind of infrastructure for them as I have for regulat patches. Making the infrastructure is not that hard, so if people start sending me bk patches by email, I can improve it, and I'll probably not dislike bk send as much as I do now. (But _please_ do a "bk send" to a file, and edit the file before you send it, instead of sending directly with that "Bitkeeper patch" subject line. It looks like "bk send" was really designed for automatic merges, not for humans) 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/