From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753315Ab2HUNkV (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:40:21 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:33129 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752976Ab2HUNkR (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:40:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:40:13 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Lee Jones Cc: Takashi Iwai , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com, arnd@arndb.de, STEricsson_nomadik_linux@list.st.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ASoC: codecs: Enable AB8500 CODEC for Device Tree Message-ID: <20120821134013.GG7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1344527268-5964-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1344527268-5964-9-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120820113427.GN8450@gmail.com> <20120820143653.GE26991@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120821115123.GE26899@gmail.com> <20120821123951.GC7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120821125811.GA931@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XaUbO9McV5wPQijU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120821125811.GA931@gmail.com> X-Cookie: If you can read this, you're too close. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --XaUbO9McV5wPQijU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:58:12PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > The bit I quoted is the main example, you're including random mail > > headers in the body of the mail. > They're not mail headers per-say, they're `git format-patch` headers. > I thought this was acceptable for single patches, hence why I've done > it lots of times and had no complaints (until now). > If there are some changes required in a single patch, I usually fix > it up, create a patch with `git format-patch` and send it as a reply > to either the original patch in the series or the mail containing the > suggestion. If this is wrong please educate me as I thought this was If you're going to do this send the patch properly in the same way patches are normally sent. Take a step back and think about this for a minute - why would it be a good idea to send these incremental patches in a different format which requires the person applying the patch to hand edit things to strip out the noise? > acceptable, as I thought it would be less pain than sending the > entire patch-set again for just one change? It makes it harder to work out which versions of things to apply and causes issues for tools when doing things like applying from a mailbox. --XaUbO9McV5wPQijU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQM4+uAAoJEFJkBDiqVpZ4zPMP/RQ2saQWRmxUdo181YJH4oci sNDM35Hhhc+mW+hIfvgX0dJIqCLFW7iS1Xek5vLtlcuM3xURL1w/uJPJIonBD9QR rla7XOs5LLZlD9u2I4cEzzGRoK/JhrZHuhbdAGcfd0jufnbCBPTgIEwnUHNNkR4I VdgAAmKhkdqp1qT7+WjJmtfSS/KOMTWcKwFzPdPXV41o0TSpBiXKs8EaGp8goX8g 0AAUhV5JzwpfRA7oXVDIgN2iZOyae90PIPldhFhKg4jm9DJtqaftjP87+KW8b45P hAXeIpsGZwPnXr5v+PEOLbfA4tVEzN8yWl7C7c3zl/zZPLQmpsv3UvHNU0TA0YF8 NNmj4rIchhOPHVpbG7F84fZi426VynS1K681MOXQFqFecIBJpeyMgl/w/MINZlrU fuqm78fdOs4Vtp5GdQGDBSQW4ZZYKu5z0ap0Pj2TUr4VBettVZJTyAzftgNrv3OC 0FA77r8FvvlKskD6D6QVS+pPn+5/8uDENAkAK93ds7InJS0AK88YbMfiH/pNwQEB ZFOQe0ojJ3oMGN+7OPLKJIjClLdJJrAyqkCdF5R8HkzhMqdVrm64WSUEH+VIubVn Y7aTan1xUVcboX3i5G9QFi3L91q95Wfqvu6eqgLQ7rTWl60PbmecWh08Xf3rnlg5 KasLmCIPEIWX3iAsvvfV =ied/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XaUbO9McV5wPQijU--