From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:54:53 +0000 Subject: Re: Clarification for the use of additional fields in the message body Message-Id: <559B85CD.6040200@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <530CD2C4.4050903@users.sourceforge.net> <530CF8FF.8080600@users.sourceforge.net> <530DD06F.4090703@users.sourceforge.net> <5317A59D.4@users.sourceforge.net> <558EB32E.6090003@users.sourceforge.net> <558EB4DE.3080406@users.sourceforge.net> <20150707023103.GA22043@kroah.com> <559B6FF8.9010704@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Frans Klaver Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Chris Park , Dean Lee , Johnny Kim , Rachel Kim , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Julia Lawall , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, LKML > The date, as far as I know, is ignored. It is the commit date, > not the authoring date, and once your patch is applied by a maintainer > (i.e. committed), the date gets reset anyway. Thanks for your feedback. > No need to try and preserve it. I find that it might occasionally help to share and keep the record on timestamps about the evolution for an original update suggestion. Regards, Markus