Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 09:58 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Kaartic Sivaraam <kaarticsivaraam91196@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > I'll send a typical patch that uses "git interpret-headers" as a >> > follow-up. >> >> When you say a "typical" patch, what do you exactly mean? Does >> anybody else send typical patches (or atypical ones for that matter) >> to the list? >> > I apologise for the inconsistent wordings. I try to mean a patch which > I'm not sure is acceptable (or) not. I guess that's [PATCH/RFC] in the > language of this list. I'm not acquainted to the wordings as I'm an > "off-list" person trying to help and get help! I'll try to use > consistent wordings as far as I could. Once again, please excuse my > ignorance. Oh no need to apologise for "ignorance"; that goes both ways. I wasn't familiar with a phrase you used "a typical patch" (which I suspected that is something you may be used to from your involvement in other development community) and showing _my_ ignorance and asking for help to clarify, so that both of us can understand each other better. My reading of your response is that it is a normal patch that proposes a change, as opposed to the final version of a patch meant for inclusion, after it has been discussed here and everybody supports---let me know if I am still not reading you correctly. Thanks.
