On Dec 29, 2007 7:42 PM, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Patches should be self-contained for ease of bisecting. I can't tell > > whether this patch is correct or not because you haven't included all > > the other places that need to change at the same time as this. > > I think a broken-up patch series isn't totally wrong to do for a first > look at these RFC patches. Of course the series needs to become a > single patch before it is committed to a tree whose history needs to > support bijection, e.g. -mm. > > However, Dave's postings lack a References: header which refer to his > 00/12 posting.
Thanks. I agree with you, for bitsection it should be a single one. > > (Also, a bonus in the 00/12 posting would be a listing of all patch > titles in the series and the total diffstat of the series, but nearly > nobody does this.) Your sugestion is better. And, andrew recommends not to use 00/xx introduction email in series in his "The perfect patch": http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt > -- > Stefan Richter > -=====-=-=== ==-- ===-= > http://arcgraph.de/sr/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
