Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7003BC43441 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A96208A3 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="HWQhklZk"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="MiaOPzlM" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 34A96208A3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389324AbeKPTGF (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:06:05 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:42164 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727398AbeKPTGF (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:06:05 -0500 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4F52460591; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:54:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1542358482; bh=Ujk/FXE+8DOQQvtMf9xPaUsKS8I62iOuaeLZGq6JSNs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HWQhklZk0Bh3MiGn0FL7SoqdNXk3FLs2QTDE/hqthHZVKwzzSCRBq5lDc95ZvNLOn XFVxrUvDuUZlG1C3/HzF5ZY+dL8Duh5jGh5rt8UGZmD3d9GNlD0pWwe8hmuGMxgoqY A9pX3LCUGbLRZl4RWUKSod8URNWwBVyFMiyYJ2Uo= Received: from x230.qca.qualcomm.com (87-95-226-75.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.95.226.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D2398601D4; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:54:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1542358481; bh=Ujk/FXE+8DOQQvtMf9xPaUsKS8I62iOuaeLZGq6JSNs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MiaOPzlMFAe4PTBdy14aZaG1ey0QznQZOadsSLS3q1DJ75sI9lD9Xx2ZbtZ2sxQYn wH2SD1qXqqeLciuOzWXMWTtgeYMTHfbrqXw/DVG/a3MvSevfYQGvZmVCkr9HoUoSSC nKIG2LmLJoqwLLMZGK8aBoUwIpjH0TpVoTmmwdHo= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org D2398601D4 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Johannes Berg Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Rafa=C5=82_Mi=C5=82ecki?= , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: wiki: tree labels in patches References: <20181108150829.24842-1-zajec5@gmail.com> <87lg62cpno.fsf@codeaurora.org> <87in0x8l4t.fsf_-_@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:54:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Berg's message of "Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:49:26 +0100") Message-ID: <87efbl8ks1.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Johannes Berg writes: > On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 10:46 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Yes, I do see your FIX tag in patchwork: >> >> [ 31] [FIX] brcmfmac: fix reporting support for 160 MHz channels 2018-11-08 >> >> But "FIX" is a bit ambigous as not all fixes not go to wireless-drivers, >> they can also go to wireless-drivers-next. So I prefer using the release >> number (or name of the tree) like this: >> >> [PATCH 4.20] brcmfmac: fix reporting support for 160 MHz channels > > FWIW, davem/networking just use > > [PATCH net] > [PATCH net-next] > > which puts a bit more effort on the submitter but is a bit easier on the > maintainer I suppose. Also, not really a problem here, but it would help > disambiguate different trees on the same mailing list. I don't really > mind either way. Actually I already added that to the wiki[1] but made it optional just bacause it's harder for patch submitters who are not so familiar with our tree structure. But yes, I also like using the full tree name as the label, even more so as it would help me to automatically assign patches to correct maintainers in patchwork. [1] https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches#tree_labels -- Kalle Valo