On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:51:24PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
From: Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:50:05 +0100
Please resend this series with all the acks you've got rather than mixing incremental updates in like this.
I'm waiting until I have a few more Acks before I resend the entire patch-set again. Actually it's you and one other that I'm waiting for to review (and Ack as necessary) the ones requested by Linus, then resend with the corrections.
Well, I'm the person who's going to apply the patches so I'm unlikely to ack them... I was waiting for arch/arm review before I looked at
I have all of Linus' Acks. The only ones missing are yours and Ola's, but I think Ola is on vacation still, so he's asked Roger to do it. I don't know if you saw, but Linus has placed lots of Acked-by's which are dependent on your say-so, hence why I was waiting for your response.
them due to the number of resends.
Bingo, thus why I was dubious about resending the entire patch-set too prematurely.
Please also send patches in the format documented in SubmittingPatches.
That's a big document, most of which I guess I'm adhering to. Care to be a little more specific?
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 acceptable, as I thought it would be less pain than sending the entire patch-set again for just one change?