From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:44:46 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v6 1/7] powerpc: Extract EPAPR_MAGIC constants into processor.h In-Reply-To: <508FD713.6070802@denx.de> References: <1351590321-20368-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de> <20121030100424.0C81A2001B0@gemini.denx.de> <508FA904.4070402@denx.de> <20121030110536.ECFBC2001B0@gemini.denx.de> <508FD713.6070802@denx.de> Message-ID: <509003FE.5060203@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de -----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-----