On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>[..]
>
> > Given a set of historical modifiers of a file,
> > would you take the most common commiter(s), or the most common
> > _recent_ commiter(s), or what? It's a bit fuzzy.
>
> All the above? Multiply frequency by recency,
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0300 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> >
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0300 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
> > >
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
about posted patches to the other mailing lists whenever
someone forgets
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:11PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > >...
> > > Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> > > when sending a patch to LKML by
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:26:01PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
[]
> > As you will see, nobody cares about comprehensive
> > patches/tests/bugs/testers/developers *tracking* system.
> >
> > And don't limit yourself to fast conclusions. Thanks.
>
> I am not proposing a comprehensive tracking system. I
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
> > > here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
> > > about posted
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:22:46PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > Right, however many patches don't map to bug reports and don't
> > need the heavy use of BTS. This suggestion is mainly for the
> > improvement of peer review concerning code changes submitted
> > by people who are not the
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:08:54AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > * Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
> > > carbon copy fields in the E-Mails
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 "Kok, Auke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
> > here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
> > about posted patches to the other mailing lists whenever
> > someone forgets to add
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> >...
> > Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> > when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
> > script can look at '.maintainers'
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
...
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers' files spread
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
about posted patches to the other mailing lists whenever
someone forgets to add a CC.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:08:54AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
* Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:22:46PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
Right, however many patches don't map to bug reports and don't
need the heavy use of BTS. This suggestion is mainly for the
improvement of peer review concerning code changes submitted
by people who are not the maintainers.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
about posted patches to the
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:26:01PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
[]
As you will see, nobody cares about comprehensive
patches/tests/bugs/testers/developers *tracking* system.
And don't limit yourself to fast conclusions. Thanks.
I am not proposing a comprehensive tracking system. I think
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 12:47:11PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 06:01:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
...
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
here. Also, a bot reading LKML would automatically send links
about posted patches to the other mailing lists whenever
someone forgets to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0300 Dan Aloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some extensions to the popular E-Mail clients might be needed
here. Also, a bot
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0300 Dan Aloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:54:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:51:53 -0700 Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some extensions
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
[..]
Given a set of historical modifiers of a file,
would you take the most common commiter(s), or the most common
_recent_ commiter(s), or what? It's a bit fuzzy.
All the above? Multiply frequency by recency, pick the
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
>...
> Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
> script can look at '.maintainers' files spread across the
> source tree and automatically generate a proper
On 6/30/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/30/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> an easier way to implement this is to add an extra field in the MAINTAINERS
> file, something like below. All the contact info would stay the same, closely
> where applicable and it
On 6/30/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
an easier way to implement this is to add an extra field in the MAINTAINERS
file, something like below. All the contact info would stay the same, closely
where applicable and it would allow you to also specify specific files as well.
Hmm,
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
> > carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
> >
> > Basically, instead of manually figuring out
Dan Aloni wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers'
* Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
> carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
>
> Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
> when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers' files spread across
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers' files spread across
* Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script
Dan Aloni wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers'
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:01:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
* Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:34:51 +0300
Hello,
I'd like to present a suggestion for automatic generation of
carbon copy fields in the E-Mails of posted patches.
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
On 6/30/07, Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
an easier way to implement this is to add an extra field in the MAINTAINERS
file, something like below. All the contact info would stay the same, closely
where applicable and it would allow you to also specify specific files as well.
Hmm,
On 6/30/07, Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/30/07, Kok, Auke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
an easier way to implement this is to add an extra field in the MAINTAINERS
file, something like below. All the contact info would stay the same, closely
where applicable and it would
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 05:34:51AM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
...
Basically, instead of manually figuring out who to add to CC
when sending a patch to LKML by looking at MAINTAINERS, a
script can look at '.maintainers' files spread across the
source tree and automatically generate a proper list
36 matches
Mail list logo
