From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zach Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mmc: sdhci-pci: Use ACPI to set max frequency of sdio host Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:37:40 -0600 Message-ID: <20161122163739.GA10111@zach-desktop> References: <1479769446-8490-1-git-send-email-zach.brown@ni.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from mail-bn3nam01on0126.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.33.126]:27520 "EHLO NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751288AbcKVRKf (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:10:35 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Adrian Hunter , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:27:29AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > Please try to not forget to bump the version number and to provide a > history of the what changes between revisions. It makes life easier > when reviewing and when I am about to apply patches. > Sorry, I'll make sure to include a history. When switching from RFC to PATCH should the version number of the PATCH be 1 or the lastest RFC version plus 1? Or does it not matter either way as long as the history is present? -- Zach