From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752832Ab3CGGzP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 01:55:15 -0500 Received: from perches-mx.perches.com ([206.117.179.246]:60920 "EHLO labridge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751039Ab3CGGzN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 01:55:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1362639311.5290.28.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] get_maintainer: prevent keywords from matching filenames From: Joe Perches To: Stephen Warren Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marcin Slusarz , Lucas Stach , Borislav Petkov , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, Maarten Lankhorst , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Warren Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:55:11 -0800 In-Reply-To: <51383800.7000608@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1362616141-13947-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1362616141-13947-3-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1362616252.2093.37.camel@joe-AO722> <5137E09E.1060006@wwwdotorg.org> <1362616810.2093.40.camel@joe-AO722> <51383800.7000608@wwwdotorg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 23:47 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 03/06/2013 05:40 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > Which is why I showed the whole thing in a single patch. > > No worries if it's simply to increase the patch count... > > I'm not sure what showed refers to? The changes I posted with the suggestion https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/6/468 > I guess if I squashed /everything/ into a single commit (i.e. the change > to the Tegra section in MAINTAINERS too) then there wouldn't be any > bisect issues. I really don't care about patch count. The reason for >1 > patch is that there's often push-back if doing logically separate things > (adding N: feature, modifying a MAINTAINERS entry to use it, removing > part of K: feature) in a single patch... Not from me anyway. I think it's a single logical change and it's trivial too. No worries whatever happens.