From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Wiles, Keith" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simplify the ifdefs in rte.app.mk. Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:05:38 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1430240597-26782-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com> <5540BBC6.3090008@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Thomas Monjalon , "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: <9A000E6605BD6247A83E0A28A0F9A4BA-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 4/29/15, 6:51 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" wrote: >2015-04-29 13:08 GMT+02:00 Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio >: >> On 29/04/2015 11:12, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> It seems this is the second version of your patch. >>> Please add v2 prefix and a changelog to ease review and >>> patch management. >>> As you probably know, it is explained here: >>> http://dpdk.org/dev#send >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Just to clarify as I tend to use RFC PATCH as well, do we still mark it >>as >> v2 even though the first patch was an RFC PATCH? > >Yes it's clearer to include RFC PATCH in versioning. >RFC is only a keyword to highlight the desire of debating and/or >improving with review comments. >So I think RFC patch should be considered as the number one. Adding v1 >is possible. OK, will send a new patch with the correct version. >