From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8089964661752563542==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Denis Kenzior Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Revert "gprs: _cid_activated is an 'attaching' state" Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:30:37 -0500 Message-ID: <518d2bb9-02fa-d794-5dff-9efd09abcb18@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4a96c48e-91aa-0948-0dbc-d0fe8a7d3310@norrbonn.se> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============8089964661752563542== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Richard, Jonas, On 8/21/19 1:01 AM, Jonas Bonn wrote: > Hi Richard, > = > On 20/08/2019 17:56, richard.rojfors(a)gmail.com wrote: >> From: Richard R=C3=B6jfors >> >> This reverts commit 1fd419e5b4b3a87673f8e0219edb0f3ed9fca774. > = > This patch is fine and certainly necessary in the context of this = > series.=C2=A0 Posting it as a 'revert', however, is a bit unsavoury. > = > A reverted patch implies that it was somehow wrong or inappropriate. = > That's not the case here.=C2=A0 This code has become superfluous in the f= ace = > of other changes that have been made in the tree. > = > Just squash these two revert patches into one "forward looking" patch. = > The fact that the change effectively constitutes a 'revert' is moot. > = So what I ended up doing was to squash patch 2 & 3 and reword the = description a bit, dropping the 'revert' heading per your wishes. Let = me know if you're fine with that. Otherwise, all 3 applied. Regards, -Denis --===============8089964661752563542==--