From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [git patches] libata fixes Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:11:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1183558283.29081.86.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <20070703155238.GA7344@havoc.gtf.org> <20070703170734.5a25b9c5@the-village.bc.nu> <20070703173429.24b5dbdc@the-village.bc.nu> <20070703182134.7a25d4bd@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([209.217.80.40]:42670 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757551AbXGDOKx (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:10:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070703182134.7a25d4bd@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 18:21 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Chuck posted a link to an attachment in bugzilla not to anything from > version control. And the bugzilla bug clearly indicates who posted the > attachment. Probably Chuck should have posted the bug number as well. Perhaps it would have helped if the attachment itself contained a short comment and some information about its own provenance. It can be painful trawling through bugzilla to find the latest version of a patch -- a direct link to the attachment often is much nicer. And the person who attaches a bug to bugzilla isn't necessarily the author of it anyway. -- dwmw2