Jeff,
Three more questions.
1) Should there be a patch number when the number of patches is not known
in advance, or should it be omitted?
[PATCH 1 2.4.27] pcnet32: whatever
[PATCH 2 2.4.27] pcnet32: something else
2) If a group of patches is submitted and then more bugs are discovered
which should be fixed, what should I do?
[PATCH 5/5 2.4.27] pcnet32: ...
[PATCH 6 2.4.27] pcnet32: a couple days later
3) If an error is discovered in a patch and the patch itself should be
fixed, how would you like that indicated?
[PATCH 8/5 2.4.27] pcnet32: submitted
[PATCH 8/5 2.4.27] pcnet32: oops, this should be different.
>
> Don Fry wrote:
> Status: O
>
> > Please apply the following patches to 2.4.27-pre3. The first four are
> > simple
> > "one line" fixes. The last removes the timer I added a little while ago,
> > as it added complexity without improving performance.
> >
> > [PATCH 1/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 add static to two routines.
> > [PATCH 2/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 avoid hard hang with some chip variants.
> > [PATCH 3/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 correct 79C976 variant string.
> > [PATCH 4/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 fix boundary comparison bug.
> > [PATCH 5/5] 2.4.27-pre3 pcnet32 remove timer and complexity.
>
>
> It would help me a lot if you changed your email subject line in two
> minor ways:
>
> 1) Include the kernel version _inside_ the brackets,
>
> [PATCH 1/5 2.4.27-pre3]
>
> 2) Just to make it look a tad nicer and more consistent with other
> changelog entries, add a colon after the driver name:
>
> [PATCH 1/5 2.6.6] pcnet32: mark two routines static
>
> This allows me to pass your submission fully automated through scripts.
> The resultant one-line description of your patch becomes
>
> [PATCH] pcnet32: mark two routines static
>
> when my scripts merge your patch into the BK repository.
>
--
Don Fry
brazilnut@xxxxxxxxxx
|