Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/15] ARM: sun8i: r40: Add Ethernet support

Maxime Ripard
2018-05-04T15:03:08Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2461 bytes --]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:40:42PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
> Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 15:12:57 +0200
>
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:06:17AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
> >> Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 00:33:45 +0800
> >>
> >> > I should've mentioned that patches 3 ~ 10, and only these, should go
> >> > through net-next. sunxi will handle the remaining clk, device tree, and
> >> > soc driver patches.
> >>
> >> Ok, I just noticed this.
> >>
> >> Why don't you just post those patches separately as a series on their
> >> own then, in order to avoid confusion?
> >>
> >> Then you can adjust the patch series header posting to explain the
> >> non-net-next changes, where they got merged, and what they provide
> >> in order to faciliate the net-next changes.
> >
> > I now that we usually have some feedback from non-net maintainers that
> > they actually prefer seeing the full picture (and I also tend to
> > prefer that as well) and having all the patches relevant to enable a
> > particular feature, even if it means getting multiple maintainers
> > involved.
> >
> > Just to make sure we understood you fully, do you want Chen-Yu to
> > resend his serie following your comments, or was that just a general
> > remark for next time?
>
> Yeah, good questions.
>
> I think it can be argued either way. For review having the complete
> context is important.
>
> But from a maintainer's standpoint, when there is any ambiguity
> whatsoever about what patches go into this tree or that, it is really
> frowned upon and is quite error prone.
>
> Also, that header posting is _SO_ important. It explains the series.
> But for these 'partial apply' situations the header posting refers
> to patches not in the series.
>
> This looks terrible in the logs, when, as I do, the header posting
> text is added to a marge commit for the series. People will read it
> and say "where are all of these other changes mentioned in the text?
> was this series misapplied?"
>
> That's why, maybe after the review is successful, I want the actual
> patch series standalone with appropriately updated header posting
> text.

Ok, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense :)

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]