From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:56:39 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] Patch submission process question In-Reply-To: <4E4A16D9.9050706@gmail.com> References: <4E4A16D9.9050706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E4AA147.2050602@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 08/16/2011 02:06 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On 08/16/2011 03:20 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote: >> Hi u-boot, >> >> What is the recommended way to handle a patch series that depends on >> another patch series (already sent but not integrated)? >> > AFAIK the recommend way is to note in the patch that it depends on > another - best with some kind of link from gmane or a message-ID. A patchwork link would be ideal. >> How about a patch that was sent, that at the time didn't depend on >> another series, but after review and changes, now depends on those >> changes? > Then you have to note it in the version history that it now depends on > another patch - don't forget to also note it in the normal merge message. Merge message? If you mean the commit message (above the "---"), why? It should not be committed before its dependencies. >> Even a bit more generally, some of the series are getting quite long >> due to small dependencies. This tends to put lots of unrelated >> content into the same series based on small dependencies. How is this >> supposed to be dealt with? Is it best to make long series or just to >> send part of it and wait for it to be integrated before sending the >> rest? > Hm, here U'am not really sure - I think I would send a complete series - > but this is best answered by a custodian. If it's getting very long (the threshold is obviously subjective), I'd do the "send part of it and wait" approach. Especially if there are a lot of respins. -Scott