On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:09:47PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > "Arend van Spriel" <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 06/05/2013 10:44 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> "Arend van Spriel" <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> > >>>> This patch fixes a regression introduced by: > >>>> > >>>> commit 6da3b6c48d79da96a36c2632053cf4f53bf48fb2 > >>>> Author: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Date: Sun Mar 24 01:45:52 2013 +0100 > >>>> > >>>> brcmsmac: remove brcms_bss_cfg->associated > >>>> > >>>> The regression behaviour is described in: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg107474.html > >>> > >>> The link is not a very reliable reference, it can die anytime and > >>> there's no way to know what message it refers to. Stating the message id > >>> would better. And the best would be to copy the full text to the commit > >>> log, it's only few lines anyway. > >> > >> Johannes gave a handy tip. Gmane has a service which uses message ids: > >> > >> http://mid.gmane.org/5197DC4F.7030503@xxxxxxxxxxxx > >> > >> If the link or service dies, one can find the email with the message id > >> visible from the link. > >> > > > > What if gmane dies ;-) > > You missed my point. If gmane dies you do this: > > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=5197DC4F.7030503%40broadcom.com > > :D > > The id above is the real message id from the email, that's why you can > use it to search from email archives, google and so on. Would it be too hard to copy the text in the commit message? :-) Why should somebody jump here and there just to get the description of a bug? Imho, at least a short description should appear here. In this way also David can immediately figure out what the problem is, without jumping on the web (imagine many of this in one pull request) :-) my 2 cents. Cheers, -- Antonio Quartulli ..each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
