Hi Pavel, On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:05:59 +0200, Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de> wrote:
> On Fri 2014-10-10 00:24:46, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Pavel, > > > > In message <20141009221154.GA24774@amd> you wrote: > > > > > > Something like this could help..? > > > Pavel > > > > > > --- /dev/null 2014-10-09 01:15:57.354292026 +0200 > > > +++ doc/SubmittingPatches 2014-10-09 23:58:53.058883776 +0200 > > > > Is there anything wrong with [1] ? > > > > [1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Patches > > ..and actually... it makes submitting patches rather hard. > > [PATCH] fix compilation on socfpga > > > Please add tags to the subject > > [PATCHv2] arm: socfpga: fix compilation on socfpga > > > Please add diff from previous version > > [PATCHv3] arm: socfpga: fix compilation on socfpga > > --- > > v2: added tags to the subject Tags can be useful in automating CC: lists from Patman through doc/git-mailrc, and as a filtering key in e.g. gitk, hence the suggestion to add them. Guessing which tags a patch could use is indeed a tedious and uncertain process, but I don't think it is requested of many patches, is it? > v3: added diffs to previous version > > . (From memory, but IIRC something very similar to this happened before). At least it happened that I requested the change logs when they were missing entirely in a v2-or-later series. The reason is that with these logs, reviewers can see what change requests were acknowledged by the submitter and what other changes were spontaneous additions. > This scares of all but the most determined patch submitters, and does > not really improve code quality. One can argue that it improves code /review/, by both making sure the submitter has involved the relevant custodians (tags) and provided a follow-up on their previous remarks (diffs). Note that patman help a lot about maintaining the change log and tags. > I'd argue that if only changelog is updated, it is _not_ a new version > of patch, and does not need changelog diff. Or maybe be less strict > policy / less strict enforcement of the policy in trivial cases. Well, if only a changelog is updated, then a [PATCH vN RESEND] should be as ok as a [PATCH vN+1], and anyway both will end up as "a new patch" for Patchwork, so the difference is not really major IMO -- meaning both should be accepted and, I believe, are accepted in practice. > Best regards, > > Pavel Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot