It would be nice if someone scripted this - then people will be much more
likely to follow it. It should be relatively trivial to script; you
just need to generate the message id's and add the relevant headers.
I'd like to question the appropriateness of such a blanket rule. I agree
that it is appropriate for patches that are all part of the same area of
the kernel (eg, ext2fs, ext3fs, trace toolkits, etc)
However, is it appropriate to make one thread of a small set of unrelated
patches that touch different, unrelated parts of the kernel?
If all you want to do is delete them, I agree it does. However, that
doesn't help the sender, who's reason for sending them is to get comments
from the community.
For instance, one of my patches - the rdunzip one. It would be _really_
nice to get some feedback on it; it isn't perfect, because the behaviour
of gunzip is inherently undeterministic when given bad input data. The
only real solution IMHO is setjmp/longjmp, which I think would suck in
the kernel. I would have expected _this_ to attract some comments from
people like you. Maybe you feel that setjmp/longjmp is an approprate
solution. Unfortunately, I don't know that because no one has replied
to tell me so.
Maybe very few people look at them, I don't know. If that is the case,
I might as well send them directly to Linus and bypass lkml altogether.
-- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/