[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220319120534.3de1cfac@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2022 12:05:34 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: pull request (net): ipsec 2022-03-16
On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 08:49:11 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:44:38AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > One minor improvement to appease patchwork would be to add / keep the
> > [PATCH 0/n] prefix on the PR / cover letter when posting the patches
> > under it.
>
> I did that in the ipsec-next pull request, let me know if this is
> OK as I did it.
Yes, that one worked out perfectly. Thanks!
> > It seems that patchwork is hopeless in delineating the
> > patches and the PR if that's not there. For whatever reason it grouped
> > the PR and patch 2 as a series and patch 1 was left separate :S
>
> I guess this is why I get always two mails from patchwork-bot for
> each pull request. I already wondered why that happens :)
To be honest the pr handling in the patchwork-bot is not 100% accurate,
I wish it was responding to the pr / cover letter. We'll get there :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists