On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > This set is confusing. > > > > Why do you have a cover letter specifying this as a 2 patch set, > > yet there are 4 patches attached to it? > > I do not see too many messages for this update suggestion. In my inbox, your set looks like this: Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring ( 0) ┬>[PATCH] mfd-dm355evm_msp: One function call less in add_child() after error detection Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring ( 0) ├>[PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe() Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring ( 0) │├>[PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe() Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring ( 0) │└>[PATCH 1/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in smsc_i2c_probe() Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring ( 0) └>[PATCH] mfd: twl-core: One function call less in add_numbered_child() after error detection ... which is unconventional and pretty confusing. > >> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:10:48 +0100 > > > > What format is this? > > Are such specifications needed to preserve the desired authorship information > during the transfer of commit messages by email? How did you sent this set? I fear you are sending these patches manually, using your mail client. You should instead be creating patches with `git format-patch` and sending them using `git send-email`. Then the formatting will be correct. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
