From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] driver/net/mpipe: support native
	build on tilegx platform.
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:00:13 +0100
Message-ID: <6194137.BU55KgHhRV@xps13>
References: <1450193851-9100-4-git-send-email-lsun@ezchip.com>
 <1576967.tgJNBhtfpx@xps13> <20160210094955.GA4084@bricha3-MOBL3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B697B2E83
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:01:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id g62so19241008wme.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:01:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20160210094955.GA4084@bricha3-MOBL3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-02-10 09:49, Bruce Richardson:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-02-09 21:15, Liming Sun:
> > > Looks like this patch serie has been merged into dpdk-next-net/rel_16_04.
> > > What would be the usual way to submit changes for new comments? Would it be incremental changes (new commit) based on previous one? Thanks.
> > 
> > Good question.
> > I think it's better if Bruce drops or reverts the commits from dpdk-next-net
> > to let you re-submit a better new version.
> > Bruce, do you agree?
> 
> Unless there is something actually broken - that was previously working - by 
> this patchset I'd rather not revert it. This patch was sitting acked for a month
> which is a reasonable time for comments before applying it. Allowing people to
> step up post-apply and look for patches being reverted is not something we want
> to encourage IMHO. There are already too many reviews being done at the last
> minute, and allowing reverts may make that situation worse, while applying acked
> patches within a reasonable time - irrespective of whether people subsequently
> find issues with them - should encourage earlier reviews, and makes it easier on
> contributors.

Yes you are right.

> Therefore I'd rather see any additional enhancements or changes
> done as incremental patches on top of this set.
> 
> Regards,
> /Bruce
>