On 4/19/09, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Blue Swirl wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I gathered a few common complaints about patch submission, hopefully
> > not too much affected by my consumption of small amounts of various
> > alcoholic substances.
> > +
> > +SP2.3: The description must be followed by one blank line and a
> > +"Signed-off-by:" line
> A signoff is more than a format; it is a legal declaration, see the Linux
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches. It should be clear to the
> submitter that this is so.
I added this to a new section together with the licensing stuff.
> IIRC, one of the requirements is to use your real name :)
I can't find such a requirement :)
> > +
> > +SP3.2: If possible, please send the patch inlined (to make commenting
> > +easier) and also attached (to make it easier to apply)
> If the patch is attached (and not inlined) it should be marked as
> text/plain content type.
> > +
> > +SP4.4: The patches targeted for development branch must be based on
> > +the current development repository
> > +
> > +SP4.5: The patches targeted for stable branch must be based on the
> > +current stable repository
> Suggest instead: patches should state which branch they are based on, and
> should be based on a recent version of the branch.
I'd suppose most of the patches are for the development branch, so one
of the subject tags could be "STABLE" indicating stable branch.
Without it dev branch is assumed.
> In addition:
> When sending multiple patches, patches should be numbered (inside the
> brackets: [PATCH 09/17]) and should include a cover letter describing the
> patchset in general (as opposed to infividual patch descriptions). Patch
> management utilities (git send-email, quilt, and similar) can do this, so
> their use is recommended.
I collected the patch series stuff to a new section.