Op 2014-02-13 om 04:04 schreef Sylvain Gault:> 2014-02-13 3:20 UTC+01:00, celelibi at gmail.com <celelibi at gmail.com>: > > From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> > > > > It looks like git-send-email messed the headers when changing the sender.And there was no actual patch ( no unified diff output ) in that e-mail. Please rerun providing '[PATCH] Potential bug in emalloc' Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven
2014-02-13 7:38 UTC+01:00, Geert Stappers <stappers at stappers.nl>:> Op 2014-02-13 om 04:04 schreef Sylvain Gault: >> 2014-02-13 3:20 UTC+01:00, celelibi at gmail.com <celelibi at gmail.com>: >> > From: Sylvain Gault <sylvain.gault at gmail.com> >> > >> >> It looks like git-send-email messed the headers when changing the sender. > > And there was no actual patch ( no unified diff output ) in that e-mail. > > Please rerun providing '[PATCH] Potential bug in emalloc' > > > Groeten > Geert StappersThis was on purpose. This mail is the cover letter. Because not everything I wanted to say was good to put in the commit message. There is only one patch. Maybe I should have annotated the commit mail? And gmail sent the previous mail from sylvain.gault instead of celelibi.... Celelibi
On 02/13/2014 05:55 AM, Celelibi wrote:> > This was on purpose. This mail is the cover letter. Because not > everything I wanted to say was good to put in the commit message. > There is only one patch. Maybe I should have annotated the commit > mail? >The "standard" way to do this is to mark the cover letter [PATCH 0/1] and the actual patch [PATCH 1/1] ... or with a higher count if an actual patch series (i.e. [PATCH 0/2] [PATCH 1/2] [PATCH 2/2] and so on.) git format-patch has the -n option for this purpose. -hpa