On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:31:59PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:04:37PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:02:20PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > There's probably a bit of a process problem here - these patches are all > > > being posted as part of big and apparently controversial threads with > > > subject lines in the form "ARM / ACPI:" so people could be forgiven for > > > just not even reading the e-mails enough to notice changes to their > > > subsystems. Is it worth posting those patches separately more directly > > > to the relevant maintainers? > > > I think it's beneficial to post the entire series as one thread, but to > > change the subject line of each patch to adequately reflect the affected > > subsystem. > > Just changing the subject lines to be more suitable would help, but > given the painful thread it's probably worth going the extra step if > the lack of these reviews is a causing problems - I know that even with > a suitable subject line if I'm busy then I'm fairly likely to zone out > something in the middle a big series that doesn't seem to be going > anywhere. True, I was merely expressing a preference. A lot of series containing irqchip changes tend to have build dependencies outside of drivers/irqchip. So I like to see the whole picture to decide how best to handle the patches. I suppose the ideal solution would be to have a "mute sub-thread" option in the MUA. But that doesn't help us today. :) Whichever way they do it is fine by me. thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
