Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:56:22 +0100 (BST)
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> suggest a unique identifier for your patch? Humans are usually better
> at picking sensible names than a machine, and in discussions, it is
> better to refer to 'ide-foobar-fix3' than KP7562 even if the latter is
> better for machines. It also makes the Requires: header easier to
> understand.
Humans will generally get a weird report from sending Linus a message wonder
what all this field stuff is and mail someone else instead.
The thing that needs the most thinking about is how to handle patches that
don't have all this id crap and stuff on them.
This is why it makes more sense to let the system pick the patch
number. That way the developers don't have to worry about it. (No, I
don't think the dependency stuff will get much, if any use.)
The only ID field which I'd ask for (and it's to make my job easier), is
that if a patch is known to fix a bug in the 2.4 buglist, that you
include that fact in the header. (i.e., this fixes problem T0012.)
If people don't do this (it's optional), I'll try to intuit it from the
patch subscription, but I'll occasionally get things wrong.
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:21 EST