SubmittingPatches: make Subject examples match the de facto standard

The examples should better match what kernel developers actually expect,
so that they set a good example both for this project and for other
projects with similar development processes.

Signed-off-by: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index fd89b04d34f038bafd1485a8f96869828470f619..4710e4afef19c40b146e50c9fedff8b9fc308ead 100644 (file)
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -659,8 +659,8 @@ succinct and descriptive, but that is what a well-written summary
 should do.
 
 The "summary phrase" may be prefixed by tags enclosed in square
-brackets: "Subject: [PATCH tag] <summary phrase>".  The tags are not
-considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
+brackets: "Subject: [PATCH <tag>...] <summary phrase>".  The tags are
+not considered part of the summary phrase, but describe how the patch
 should be treated.  Common tags might include a version descriptor if
 the multiple versions of the patch have been sent out in response to
 comments (i.e., "v1, v2, v3"), or "RFC" to indicate a request for
@@ -672,8 +672,8 @@ the patch series.
 
 A couple of example Subjects:
 
-    Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
-    Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
+    Subject: [PATCH 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
+    Subject: [PATCH v2 01/27] x86: fix eflags tracking
 
 The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
 and has the form: