Show 32 quoted lines
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 1:25 PM Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:42 AM Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 13:00, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> > > > These changes are still worthwhile and can easily be done
> > > > incrementally atop what is already in next, I would think.
> > >
> > > I agree, these fixes are required. So, I am not sure but now to do these
> > > fixup shall I send another patch cleaning this patch series(v4) and rebase the
> > > patch on the 'next' branch ? Is it the right way ?
> >
> > Yeah, I think you can send each of the above 3 changes in a different
> > patch on top of the 'next' branch. That would create a new 3 patch
> > long series, which you should give a new name and not consider v5 of
> > the previous patch series.
>
> Yes, whatever issues from my reviews seem worth fixing atop the
> existing v4 can be included in this new patch series. (I think there
> may have been a few things beyond the three listed in the v5 cover
> letter, but I didn't bother doing a full audit of my review emails, so
> I could be wrong.) As Christian said, just make it a new series,
> though be sure to build it atop your v4 rather than building it atop
> "next". (The problem with building atop "next" is that your series
> then gets held hostage by _every_ series already in "next", which
> makes it nearly impossible for your series to graduate to "master"
> since it can't graduate until every other existing series in "next"
> graduates to "master".) The one other important thing is to mention in
> the cover letter that your new series is built atop "cm/rebase-i",
> which lets Junio know where to place the new series when he picks it
> up (and also lets reviewers know where to apply it if they want to
> test it themselves).
Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@gmail.com>