From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH v2 0/5] gdbsx: fix 3 bugs Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:43:52 -0500 Message-ID: <52CD6428.9060102@terremark.com> References: <1389140748-26524-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <52CD1A5B02000078001116AD@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52CD1A5B02000078001116AD@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Don Slutz Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 01/08/14 03:28, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 08.01.14 at 01:25, Don Slutz wrote: >> Release manager requests: >> patch 1 and 3 are optional for 4.4.0. >> patch 2 should be in 4.4.0 >> patch 4 and 5 would be good to be in 4.4.0 > Which clearly shows that the series is badly ordered: You shouldn't > expect committers to know (or even have to guess) that applying > later patches without earlier ones is okay. I.e. if you think that > leaving out part of the series for 4.4 is fine, you should place the > required ones first, the optional ones second, and the 4.5 ones > last. Or, if the patches are in fact independent, another option > would be to not send the patches as a series in the first place. If this was not real close to the release date, I would not have added this information. Clearly the way I wrote it is not the way it should be expressed. Thanks for you help, I will try to do that ordering in the future. -Don Slutz > Jan > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel