On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:59:56PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:45:43 +0200
>
> > >From a pure eye-candy perspective it would be nice to use same format
> > all over.
> > >From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> > -
From: Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:45:43 +0200
> >From a pure eye-candy perspective it would be nice to use same format
> all over.
> >From Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
> --
> 12) The canonical patch format
>
> The canonical patch subject line is:
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:28:46PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo J?rvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:01:09 +0300 (EEST)
>
> >[TCP] FRTO: summary here
>
> This looks perfectly fine.
Looking 100 commits back or so it is obvious we have two distinct
notations:
From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:01:09 +0300 (EEST)
>[TCP] FRTO: summary here
This looks perfectly fine.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.ker
Hi,
I have read through http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html, which uses
$subsystem as prefix for summary. Could you please clarify what is
appropriate "prefix" for the actual summary in a case where patch touches
only a part of a subsystem, that is in my case, FRTO. Should the
subsystem be T
