Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/13] kernel-yocto: 6.18 updates and 6.12/6.16 removal

["Mathieu Dubois-Briand" <mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com>]

On Tue Feb 10, 2026 at 3:18 PM CET, Bruce Ashfield via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 9:08 AM Mathieu Dubois-Briand <
> mathieu.dubois-briand@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
>> Just a note about the process while we are at it: picking this series
>> was not straightforward, at least with b4: it got confused by patches
>> 1-4 appearing twice (1 oe-core, 1 meta-yocto). It was not a big deal and
>> I have no suggestion for a better process so far, but it would be
>> helpful if patch numbers were unique.
>>
>
> My export scripts are doing that numbering on purpose, so I can definitely
> change it if it helps the picking of them.
>
> I can also just send them to the two separate lists, but I'm trying to
> simulate
> the unified series so that we don't miss coordinating between the two
> lists (and that's why the numbering is individual).
>
> I do have a "flat mode" in the tools, and that would just number them from
> 0-N through the entire series.
>
> I'm open to either option. I can send 0-N to the single list, or do the two
> 0-N sends on separate lists and let the coordination happen on your end
> between the two.
>
> Just let me know which you prefer and I'll switch to it.
>
> Bruce
>

I do not have any strong opinion here.

Having two separate 0-N series on the two separate lists is probably the
easiest one to pick on my side, but I can understand the advantage of a
single series to make sure all patches are picked in coordination. A
single series is also a working solution.

So I will let others share their opinions.

Thanks,
Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Dubois-Briand, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com