On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:00:58AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> Are the references to BitKeeper still relevant here?
Vaguely. A while ago bk was in common use in the Linux community. The
licenses for bitkeeper were withdrawn around April 2005 so it's probably
time to remove them.
> >> Bear in mind that the Subject: of your email becomes a
> >> globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the
> >> way into BitKeeper. The Subject: may later be used in developer
> ------------^^^^^^^^^
> >> discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to google
> >> for the patch's Subject: to read discussion regarding that patch.
>
> and
>
> >> Do not refer to earlier patches when changelogging a new version of
> >> a patch. It's not very useful to have a bitkeeper changelog which
> -------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^
> >> says "OK, this fixes the things you mentioned yesterday". Each
> >> iteration of the patch should contain a standalone changelog. This
> >> implies that you need a patch management system which maintains
> >> changelogs. See below.
>
> and
>
> >> Don't bother mentioning what version of the kernel the patch
> >> applies to ("applies to 2.6.8-rc1"). This is not interesting
> >> information - once the patch is in bitkeeper, of _course_ it
> --------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^
> >> applied, and it'll probably be merged into a later kernel than the
> >> one which you wrote it for.
Akpm wrote that. I wonder if he's got an updated version of this.
Ralf
