[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: macronix: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

[Graeme Russ]

Hi Wolfgang,

On 09/07/11 15:16, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Mike Frysinger,
> 
> In message <1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier at gentoo.org> you wrote:
>> From: Macpaul Lin <macpaul at andestech.com>
>>
>> Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet
>> http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf
>>
>> This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul at andestech.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org>
>> ---
>> v2
>> 	- tweak summary
> 
> This is an identical repost of 
> 06/28 Mike Frysinger     [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K
>              http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129
> 
> 
> Your "changelog":
> 
> 	- tweak summary
> 
> is a lie, as NOTHING changes (except for the "[PATCH 1/9]" versus
> "[PATCH v2]" part).
> 
> 
> I have explained to you MANY times that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED to resend
> unchanged patches.
> 
> I feel you are intentionally provoking me.
> 
> Or am I missing somethign?

The 'Subject' (Summary??) has changed:

Old:
[U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd/spi/macronix.c: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

New (and imho improved):
[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: macronix: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005

While the actual patch itself is identical, there is a change to what would
ultimately end up in git - How should we treat such trivial changes? It
seems to me that the maintainers will tweak this kind of detail at their
discretion and simply post an 'Applied with updated summary' to the ML - Is
this your preferred option?

Regards,

Graeme