From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:49422 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750868Ab1HZOaO (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:30:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:27:04 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: Javier Cardona Cc: Thomas Pedersen , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] FIXUP: mesh gates Message-ID: <20110826142704.GF2579@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20110826_163018_425999_D212D580) References: <1314235313-4564-1-git-send-email-thomas@cozybit.com> <87ei09onhi.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <20110825114536.GA11153@tuxdriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Javier Cardona wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:45 AM, John W. Linville > wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 12:21:29PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Thomas Pedersen writes: > >> > >> > Since v1 of the mesh gate series was accidentally applied, revert > >> > the relevant v1s and apply the v2s. > >> > >> This looks ugly in the git history. IMHO it would be cleaner that you > >> would do a diff between series v1 and v2 and submit that as a proper > >> patch. > >> > >> But John might think otherwise, better to wait for his comment. > > > > That is how I would prefer it as well. > > As a general rule, should we treat patchsets sent to the list > atomically? I.e. if there are objections to a few patches in the set, > should we resubmit a v2 of the whole patchset? > (Before asking I tried to find that info here: > http://linuxwireless.org/en/developers/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > . I'll be happy to update the wiki with your response if you think > it's relevant) In general, I would prefer to see the entire patchset reposted -- that leads to less confusion for me. Hth! John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.