[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH,RESEND2] regulator: fixed, gpio: dt: regulator-name is required property
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:00:12AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:

> > No, a content free ping is when you just send a reply saying something
> > to the effect of "hey, what's going on with this?".

> Well, I did quote the entire patch and gave a summary of the status
> as far as I know it. So I really don't understand why I got the
> "no content free pings" response ...

Which just boils down to a "what's going on with this" message.

> > As I said in my
> > reply best case the answer is going to be "I have no idea, you need to
> > resend since I'll need the patch to do anything with it" and worst case
> > it just won't get seen at all if the thing really did get buried
> > somehow.

> So you are saying you don't want pings as followups to patches at all, if
> the patch is old enough that it probably got lost?

> I guess that would make sense too, but again it's not obvious to read
> the canned response that way.

No, I'm saying don't send pings at all. Resend patches if you think
they've got lost, and as normal when you're sending a patch it should
start off a new thread. The goal is to send something that can be
directly acted on when it's seen rather than requring another round of
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-14 11:42    [W:0.092 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site