Re: Kernel SCM saga..

[Magnus Damm]

On Apr 7, 2005 7:38 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So my prefernce is _overwhelmingly_ for the format that Andrew uses (which
> is partly explained by the fact that I am used to it, but also by the fact
> that I've asked for Andrew to make trivial changes to match my usage).
> 
> That canonical format is:
> 
>         Subject: [PATCH 001/123] [<area>:] <explanation>
> 
> together with the first line of the body being a
> 
>         From: Original Author <origa@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> followed by an empty line and then the body of the explanation.
> 
> After the body of the explanation comes the "Signed-off-by:" lines, and
> then a simple "---" line, and below that comes the diffstat of the patch
> and then the patch itself.

While specifying things, wouldn't it be useful to have a line
containing tags that specifies if the patch contains new features, a
bug fix or a high-priority security fix? Then that information could
be used to find patches for the sucker-tree.

/ magnus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/