The examples should better match what kernel developers actually expect, so that they set a good example both for this project and for other projects with similar development processes. Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@xxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches index fd89b04..4710e4a 100644 --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches @@ -659,8 +659,8 @@ succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary should do. The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square -brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>". The tags are not -considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch +brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>". The tags are +not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch should be treated. Common tags might include a version descriptor if the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for @@ -672,8 +672,8 @@ the patch series. A couple of example Subjects: - Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching - Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking + Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching + Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body, and has the form: -- 2.5.2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
