Re: [PATCH] i2c: Support for Netlogic XLR/XLS I2C controller.

[Mark Brown <broonie-yzvPICuk2AATkU/dhu1WVueM+bqZidxxQQ4Iyu8u01E@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1600 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 01:45:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > ...but note that opinions vary on bothering the versioning (it's not
> > likely to actually annoy anyone though).

> Huh, never heard of those. When digging old/lost/forgotten patches via
> search engines, the versioning does help a lot, for example. Even when
> going through huge mailboxes, I'd think this may help to prevent that

Personally I've never found the version number added anything for any of
that - the fact that it's vX doesn't say anything about vX+1 existing.

> old patches are picked? What is the reasoning against versioning?

I've not seen anyone actively objecting to it but it's certainly not
universal that people want it.  Mostly just due it not being worth the
effort maintaining it, and the occasional confusion it can generate with
new patches having old versions (eg, adding a new patch to an existing
series).  There's also sometimes the depression that comes from seeing
large versions on what ought to be trivial patches.

What does seem to be more of an issue is that tracking the versions of
patches pushes people towards other behaviours which aren't great.  The
one I've really noticed is that quite a few new contributors seem to get
the idea that both the version numbering and the series numbering get
attached to a patch the first time it's posted so even when a series
should be split (eg, because the core bit of the series which everything
depends on got merged) so you see an individual patch posted as patch
3/4 or whatever.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]