On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:53:17 -0700, Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:37:11 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
>
> I sent a patch last night - but it's not realtive to the last thing that
> I sent, instead relative to last night's master. Do you want me to
> create another one?

No, what you sent last night is perfect. That will be easier for me.

> It doesn't for me with origin/master. Or let me double check... what do
> you think would be the correct order (as this is a matter of taste for
> some people)...

The order in the reply buffer is fine. But with "m" I get the User-Agent
first which looks a bit strange.

Dirk also mentioned in IRC that there's a regression with the signature
being mispositioned before the quoted text with a reply buffer. Now that
I've added a signature, I'm noticing this as well.

> I think we should make this a "requirement" for patches to include a
> little NEWS blurb and either a test case or an explanation why there
> isn't a test case...

I've asked for these, but I haven't been pushing hard on this.

Review for some of these simple things would be much appreciated from
anybody on the list, (and would help ensure that patches are more likely
to be ready-to-go once I get them). So let's see more of things like
this from anyone on the list:

	Looks like a great feature---now it just needs a test case.

	I've tested this and it does just what I want. Here's a
	follow-on patch that adds an item to the NEWS file for this.

	I can't common on the specific logic of the patch, but I did
	notice some trailing whitespace. You'll want to clean that up
	and resubmit so the patch won't be rejected.

Thanks,

-Carl

-- 
carl.d.worth@intel.com