On 9/28/2013 10:08 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:
> John Hupp, regarding your latest post
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-
> devel/2013-September/045293.html , I would recommend changing the BODY
> of your e-mail to the Summary of this report or it risks being ignored
> as being general, and undetailed.
I'm not sure I understand the recommendation. Do you mean move the
update info (the git bisect results, etc) to the end of "THE ORIGINAL
REPORT" into currently-empty section "[X.] Other notes, patches, fixes,
workarounds:"?
On 9/28/2013 10:08 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote: lists.freedeskt op.org/ archives/ dri- September/ 045293. html , I would recommend changing the BODY
> John Hupp, regarding your latest post
> http://
> devel/2013-
> of your e-mail to the Summary of this report or it risks being ignored
> as being general, and undetailed.
I'm not sure I understand the recommendation. Do you mean move the
update info (the git bisect results, etc) to the end of "THE ORIGINAL
REPORT" into currently-empty section "[X.] Other notes, patches, fixes,
workarounds:"?
In other words, follow the precise format for emailing the upstream wiki.ubuntu. com/Bugs/ Upstream/ kernel# KernelTeam. 2BAC8-KernelTea mBugPolicies. Overview_ on_Reporting_ Bugs_Upstream,
maintainers given at
http://
but adding the git bisect results, etc. in section [X.]?