From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 19:43:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] use semicolons rather than commas to separate statements Message-Id: <9ab43333596f08abbbbbf1fa8cdf1ded4b65af2a.camel@perches.com> List-Id: References: <1601233948-11629-1-git-send-email-Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> <160132172369.55460.9237357219623604216.b4-ty@kernel.org> <20200929113745.GB4799@sirena.org.uk> <20201001110150.GA6715@sirena.org.uk> <20201003191501.o56tqq63d2buq5ox@chatter.i7.local> <20201003193137.z2bpwzlz5a66kkex@chatter.i7.local> In-Reply-To: <20201003193137.z2bpwzlz5a66kkex@chatter.i7.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Konstantin Ryabitsev , Julia Lawall Cc: Mark Brown , tools@linux.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jerome Brunet , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, David Lechner , Valdis =?UTF-8?Q?Kl=C4=93tnieks?= , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, Martin Blumenstingl , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Neil Armstrong On Sat, 2020-10-03 at 15:31 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 09:18:51PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > There seems to be some mismatch between b4's use of the > > > > cover letter to a patch series and what maintainers that > > > > apply a subset of the patches in the patch series. > > > > > > > > The merge description shows the entire patch series as > > > > applied, but the actual merge is only a subset of the > > > > series. > > > > > > > > Can this be improved in b4? > > > > > > So, the following logic should be applied: > > > > > > - if the entire series was applied, reply to 0/n > > > - if a subset only is applied, reply to each n/n of the patch that was > > > cherry-picked out of the series > > > > > > Is that an accurate summary? > > > > That sounds good. > > I'm worried that this can get unwieldy for series of 50 patches where 49 > got applied. Would the following be better: > > ----- > From: ... > To: ... > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] use semicolons... > > On Sun... > > These patches... > > > > [...] > > A subset of these patches was applied to > > https://... > > Thanks! > > [5/18] regmap: debugfs: > commit: > > (etc) > ----- > > In other words, we: > > - specifically say that it's a subset > - instead of just enumerating the number of patches that were applied, > as is currently the case ([1/1]) we list the exact numbers out of the > posted series (e.g. [5/18]) > > I think this is a better solution than potentially flooding everyone > with 49 emails. I think it would be better to reply individually as the likelihood that the maintainer skips just a few patches of a large series is relatively low. It's more likely for a treewide or multi-subsystem patch set for a maintainer to apply just a single one or a selected few of the patches and individual replies make it much easier to determine which ones were applied. thanks, Joe