Em Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:13:47 +0300 Antti Palosaari <crope@xxxxxx> escreveu: > On 08/22/2014 02:47 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi Antti, > > > > Please don't add "GIT PULL" on patches. That breaks my scripts, as they > > will run a completely different logic when those magic words are there > > on a message at patchwork. > > > > Also, the word "FINAL" makes me nervous... That means that you sent me > > a non-final pull request? > > I didn't find better term. Also for eyes it wasn't proper term, but > there is no such prefix which fits that case: > http://lwn.net/Articles/529490/ What is written there is: Once your patches have been reviewed/acked you can post either a pull request ("[GIT PULL]") or use the "[FINAL PATCH x/y]" tag if you don't have a public git tree. E. g. either send git pull or tag the patches as final, *if* the person sending the patches doesn't have a public git tree (although, in practice, I think that nobody is using FINAL on patches nowadays). I don't have any issue if someone uses "FINAL" on patches, but what turns on a red flag is when someone uses "FINAL" on a git pull request, because a pull request should be sent only when the patches are already ok. In other words, a FINAL word on a GIT PULL makes me wander that there is a previous pull request that is bad, but it doesn't give any glue about what pull request is broken. Is it the case of this pull request? If so, what previous pull request is broken? I would rather strongly prefer that, in the case that you sent a previous pull request that should be discarded, that you would reply to the original GIT PULL request thread with a NACK for me to be aware that I should discard it at patchwork. Regards, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
