[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801120415.07176.ak@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 04:15:06 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
lenb@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pavel@...e.cz,
mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] PM: Do not destroy/create devices while suspended (rev. 2)
> The real problem is that our current email workflow patterns don't
> provide a standardized way for maintainers to tell when a new patch
> submission is meant to override or replace an earlier submission (or
> even a set of earlier submissions). Does anybody have some suggestions
> for a good way to do this?
The versioning approach pioneered by Christoph Lameter seems to work
reasonably well.
If you post a new version increase a version number and add it with "vXXX" to the
Subject.
Also add a short change log between versions at the bottom; e.g. v1->v2: .... etc.
Then it is always clear what is the latest'n'greatest.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists