On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Which brings me to my point: maybe we should encourage people to make > this "for whom the patch tolls" information more obvious and more > explicit. It wasn't obvious in the first submission (yes, I saw the > patch then too), and even in this second one I actually initially > didn't notice this one line in between the commit message and the > actual patch. Maybe I get too much email, but I bet _that_ is very > true of others too.
Yeah, a lot of people miss the "comment" line. I try to use it sparingly, but really that only contributes to it not getting noticed. ;) > The obvious place to encourage people to do it is in the [PATCH] part > in the subject, ie something like [PATCH/mm] or similar if you expect > it to go through Andrew's mm tree, or [PATCH/x86] it you expect the > x86 maintainers to pick it up. Or [PATCH/linus] if it's something that > you really expect to bypass all maintainers (why? I'd prefer for that > to then be explained). This may be redundant for some cases where the target is already in the commit subject prefix: "x86/locking: Fixes foo", but I regularly touch code without super-clear maintainership, or end up in places where it spans multiple areas (e.g. this patch was a fix for an x86-tree commit but the fix only touches the generic bug area, whee). But for non-"obvious" cases, I like this idea; it could help me when I'm sending to lots of different trees. > But maybe other potential patch recipients would hate that kind of > extra mess in the subject line? My question would be, will the existing automated systems that parse the "PATCH" subject deal with a non-whitespaced suffix like this? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security