On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:00:09 +0200 Michal Marek wrote: > On 30.4.2011 00:46, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:38:12 -0400 Peter Foley wrote: > > > >> This patchset moves scripts/basic/docproc to scripts/docproc. > >> This causes docproc to only be built for *doc targets rather than every > >> time the kernel is compiled. > >> > >> Patches also attached as requested by Michal Marek. > > > > > > That's disappointing (the attachments). Why was this requested? > > > > See Documentation/CodingStyle, section 7: > > > > "No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text." > > and a couple of lines later: > "Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask > you to re-send them using MIME." > > Which is exactly what happened here - the patches had missing or excess > leading space and in some cases a context line was missing. So instead > of manually reconstructing the patches, I asked Peter to resend them as > attachments. OK, thanks for explaining. > BUT - I didn't request to split this patch into seven pieces. Splitting > patches into smaller parts is desired, but each part has to be self > contained and not break stuff when the later parts are not applied. So > when moving a .c file, then the corespoding Makefile changes need to be > contained in the same patch. No need to resend the patch now, I'll fold > the patches into one again, but please consider this next time. Yes, a few of them could be merged IMO. > > Instead, the saved file contains lines like > > this (below) and each patch 2 times (inline and attachment). > > Yeah, only sending the attachment would be better in this case. agreed. --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
