[U-Boot] [PATCH v6 1/7] powerpc: Extract EPAPR_MAGIC constants into processor.h

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/30/12 06:33, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> On 10/30/2012 12:05 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
[snip]
>> 2) Versioning is done on a per-series base.
>> 
>> One problem here is that it becomes difficult to keep track if 
>> what is what when only single patches of the series change and
>> get reposted - on the other hand it has always been a major PITA
>> when people repost whole series after only changing a line of two
>> in on of their many patches, so we strongly encourage posting of
>> only the changed patches.  Once more, proper threading appears to
>> be essential.
>> 
>> Another problem is what we are running into here: after severl 
>> versions of the patch series one patch that has been untouches 
>> previously gets changed.  Now it gets posted as "V6", and it's 
>> impossible to know how many previous versions of this patch
>> might have been posted before - one? 2? 3? 4? or 5?
>> 
>> When the version ID refers to the patch series rather than to
>> the individual patch, then I think it is mandatory to take this
>> into consideration in the patch history, whih then must refer to
>> all versions of the _series_.  In the present case, the patch
>> history should have looked like this:
>> 
>> V2: no changes V3: no changes V4: no changes V5: no changes V6:
>> Fix compile warning: release.S:354:0: warning: "EPAPR_MAGIC"
>> redefined
>> 
>> 
>> Is there any clear majority of preferences for patch versioning? 
>> My gut feeling is that more people would like version IDs on a 
>> per-series base, but I would like to see some confirmation for
>> this, and the we should document such expectations.
> 
> As you have already guessed, I'm in favoring the 2nd option,
> versioning on a per-series base.
> 
> What do other developers have to say? What's the recommended way to
> do this in the Linux world? Even if we don't need to do everything
> in the same way as done in Linux development, it is much easier to
> do it in a similar fashion for users working in both projects
> (U-Boot & Linux) regularly.

So, I am in favor of per-series versioning.  I also prefer whole
reposting (which I believe to be the norm in the kernel) with a dash
of common sense (posting just 1/7 makes sense here) due to how
patchwork bundles work.

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQkAP+AAoJENk4IS6UOR1WNMkP/i7oxy0L7W2N6h730IsDgE9g
tHlgbBUsm5pWnqBC8/57mOmsWWv+j3zgojc3OYMasIyAkHpAJ2yM7qoAFxeGmDzS
TyHvb2bswSIoL2pwlems2m0lfx3V7H8StRcZjpeztfbWRbQXIkKeAon0Bd5R+iwm
v/mIMR6Sdfq+x0klnRIjkO++652nKRQ+JAHLNWNVxZ6DpOqqLBtTAXXyYHLpBEKz
hGdrk2gzryoMAZKiKuiz5mgTmeHoBvsCkIiAsnYoZg94KXohvQUkQzVGV4WA4qOQ
1jk4v7vjGR3gg7c/gOjauwsTalv/6SGZ+f8kSUVV8zKBUOAXhckF0o2+nC70G74W
hoOiSuS2hTz//xkGWmLl9mANCK9iYm/RtQIj4NlrwYabmQ0oUpHRv2HU2C47tffD
u/9RrRqj4onjNR4GtYiy8M4iDFZSiVRpNF6TozxKWyXt2fG01tAPmkdy2mLqfdD5
Mbn0KKBV+/PkPrvzmX0xrFEJVhiMo4P4gUPESLADTX0Xd3oziVKpKjQTRIOpztIT
ib98JeA5fMKPQJJnMnKwldU/0gek5JYpqFihwZMPf5lXi2G3beAXRPTOgZGif621
dCyWbfMEd/fI6393wFvODLjzKT09Q1uf6KxMitrziUEZBB6QVZYRQMKmz5Adz9v0
E9tj91WHgpF9zXOhQgkq
=OWfZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----