From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net (shards.monkeyblade.net [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42243B29E for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 18:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:601:9f00:477::3d5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF46F12812C1D; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20200719.151757.18086897439312800.davem@davemloft.net> To: grandmaster@al2klimov.de Cc: toke@toke.dk, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, jiri@resnulli.us, kuba@kernel.org, cake@lists.bufferbloat.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20200719122232.58647-1-grandmaster@al2klimov.de> References: <20200719122232.58647-1-grandmaster@al2klimov.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Sun, 19 Jul 2020 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [Cake] [PATCH for v5.9] sch_cake: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 22:18:02 -0000 Please don't do this "for v5.9" stuff. There is no precendence for this and it looks like -stable patch series to just about anyone. There are well defined, established, ways to write Subject lines for proper patch submissions. Please do not invent your own way of doing this. It is very frustrating for me personally, especially with the amount of patches I have to process and review, to watch how you wildly change your patch submission formatting over and over again. Just do what other developers are doing and you'll be fine. Don't invent your own way. I'm ignoring all of your "for v5.9" formatted patches, sorry. Thanks.