linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Move arch/mips/philips to arch/mips/nxp

To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: Move arch/mips/philips to arch/mips/nxp
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:10:47 +0000
Cc: daniel.j.laird@nxp.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <20080228.090058.-126817608.imp@bsdimp.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <64660ef00802270250sae0cd4of9512f13f400dfc6@mail.gmail.com> <20080228094240.GD2750@linux-mips.org> <20080228.090058.-126817608.imp@bsdimp.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:00:58AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> Are the references to BitKeeper still relevant here?

Vaguely.  A while ago bk was in common use in the Linux community.  The
licenses for bitkeeper were withdrawn around April 2005 so it's probably
time to remove them.

> >> Bear in mind that the Subject: of your email becomes a
> >> globally-unique identifier for that patch. It propagates all the
> >> way into BitKeeper. The Subject: may later be used in developer
> ------------^^^^^^^^^
> >> discussions which refer to the patch. People will want to google
> >> for the patch's Subject: to read discussion regarding that patch.
> 
> and
> 
> >> Do not refer to earlier patches when changelogging a new version of
> >> a patch. It's not very useful to have a bitkeeper changelog which
> -------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^
> >> says "OK, this fixes the things you mentioned yesterday". Each
> >> iteration of the patch should contain a standalone changelog. This
> >> implies that you need a patch management system which maintains
> >> changelogs. See below.
> 
> and
> 
> >> Don't bother mentioning what version of the kernel the patch
> >> applies to ("applies to 2.6.8-rc1"). This is not interesting
> >> information - once the patch is in bitkeeper, of _course_ it
> --------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^
> >> applied, and it'll probably be merged into a later kernel than the
> >> one which you wrote it for.

Akpm wrote that.  I wonder if he's got an updated version of this.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>