[RFC PATCH 00/11 V5] MXS: Add i.MX28 USB Host driver

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Russell King - ARM Linux,

> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 02:27:58PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Dear Russell King - ARM Linux,
> > 
> > > Do you really need 138 messages (and counting) all threaded together
> > > across the entire history of this patch set?  Please stop posting new
> > > copies of your patch set as followups to the previous set.
> > 
> > Well, it's usually to the point where the usb patches change, so instead
> > of posting 8 patches, I post the whole set ot make it consistent.
> 
> Sure, no problem with that.
> 
> > > Not only does it rob horizontal space for reading the subjects in the
> > > index, but also it either buries your patches ages back or brings the
> > > entire 138 messages to the front of mailboxes, depending on your sort
> > > preferences.  Either way it makes threaded reading of the mailing list
> > > really difficult.
> > > 
> > > Please stop this antisocial behaviour.  Thanks.
> > 
> > Can you please suggest better solution? You mean post each new set as a
> > separate thread ? Or post each patch as an in-reply-to previous one?
> 
> Please don't thread the posting of a new version of the patches to
> the previous posting of the older version.  In other words, the
> initial summary mail for V5 should not be threaded to the V4 series,
> and the individual patches for V5 should only be threaded to the
> initial summary mail for V5.
> 
> So, rather than this as one massive thread:
> ...[PATCH V3 0/N]
>    +-[PATCH V3 1/N]
> 
>    | `-Replies
> 
>    +-[PATCH V3 2/N]
> 
>    | `-Replies
> 
>    +-[PATCH V3 3/N]
> 
>    | `-Replies
> 
>    `-[PATCH V4 0/N]
>      +-[PATCH V4 1/N]
> 
>      | `-Replies
> 
>      +-[PATCH V4 2/N]
> 
>      | `-Replies
> 
>      +-[PATCH V4 3/N]
> 
>      | `-Replies
> 
>      `-[PATCH V5 0/N]
>         +-[PATCH V5 1/N]
> 
>         | `-Replies
> 
>         +-[PATCH V5 2/N]
> 
>         | `-Replies
> 
>         `-[PATCH V5 3/N]
>           `-Replies
> 
> It should be:
> [PATCH V4 0/N]
> +-[PATCH V4 1/N]
> 
> | `-Replies
> 
> +-[PATCH V4 2/N]
> 
> | `-Replies
> 
> `-[PATCH V4 3/N]
>   `-Replies
> 
> <some time later>
> 
> [PATCH V5 0/N]
> +-[PATCH V5 1/N]
> 
> | `-Replies
> 
> +-[PATCH V5 2/N]
> 
> | `-Replies
> 
> `-[PATCH V5 3/N]
>   `-Replies
> 
> Where the 0/N patches have no parent message.  In other words, these
> sumamry messages have no references or in-reply-to headers.

I see, roger that!

> If you wish to provide a direct reference back to a previous thread,
> please do so via URLs into archives, or providing the message id or
> exact subject of the previous series in the new summary message body.
> But please don't thread each version to the previous version!

Ack. Thanks for clearing this out, sorry for the mess.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut