From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:08:34 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] iproute2: bump to version 4.14.1 In-Reply-To: <20171115092154.wkmktmstb5i7ujwc@sapphire.tkos.co.il> (Baruch Siach's message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2017 11:21:55 +0200") References: <9307d429db0bf9d7d141aa49ddc2e72425460882.1510684057.git.baruch@tkos.co.il> <87wp2rlx3i.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20171115092154.wkmktmstb5i7ujwc@sapphire.tkos.co.il> Message-ID: <87o9o3ljml.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Baruch" == Baruch Siach writes: Hi, >> I see that you didn't mark this as being for next. Is that on purpose? >> If so, why? > No purpose. I just thought it's obvious. > Would you prefer to have all patches for next marked in the subject prefix > during the -rc period? It is always nice to be explicit, but it isn't a big deal. I just wondered as you used next in the patch just before, but not here: [ 96: Baruch Siach ] [PATCH next v2 1/2] gnupg2: don't preserve the old gpg2 executable name [9.7k] [ 239: Baruch Siach ] [PATCH] iproute2: bump to version 4.14.1 [14k] -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard