2:05 p.m.
Ah - that explains it. I added additional files to the series, but
simply re-applied the original round of patches. They would've not
been tagged as v4, while the patches pertaining to the newly-modified
files had v4 in the subject.
I'll be more thorough in future patch revisions. Thanks for the explanation.
--
Mike Shuey
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Sudip Mukherjee
<sudipm.mukherjee(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 08:09:54AM -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
> BTW, you keep mentioning a v5 that I sent. Where is that, exactly?
> The last round of patches I sent I've kept labeled as "PATCH v4", and
> I only hit git send-email once. Could you forward me something from
> this v5 series, so I could see if anything is amiss on my end?
I think it was not a v5. But what happened is in your series some
of the patches were marked as v4 and some were not having any version
so it appeared like a fresh series again. Like 1/13,2/13,3/13 has v4
but the others donot have a version.
regards
sudip
2:24 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH v4 00/13] staging: lustre: lnet: code cleanups
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:05:27AM -0400, Michael Shuey wrote:
Ah - that explains it. I added additional files to the series, but
simply re-applied the original round of patches. They would've not
been tagged as v4, while the patches pertaining to the newly-modified
files had v4 in the subject.
The way you sent these is a mess, I can't sort by subject and apply them
properly.
Either put the v4 at the front, for all patches, like this:
[PATCH v4 01/13]
or at the end of the number:
[PATCH 01/13 v4]
so I can sort them.
Please fix up and resend this series, I've dropped it from my queue.
thanks,
greg k-h
2384
days inactive
2392
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Greg KH -
Michael Shuey