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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Wolfgang, Stefan,

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de> wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On 10/30/2012 12:05 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> As you know this patch is part of a patch-series. And this is the first
>>> time that this patch has a change. So this summary covers the complete
>>> history for this patch.
>>
>> But exactly this is information which I do not have, and which is not
>> included in your patch.  As is, I can only intepret this to be version
>> 6 of this specific commit, and I wonder which changes were made in the
>> previous 5 versions.
>
> *If* we agree upon a per patch series versioning (see below), then this
> would be enough. To only list the changes that have been made to this
> patch. Your suggestion from below is even better. To document that no
> changes have been made:
>
>         V2: no changes
>         ...
>
> I'm pretty sure that Simon (or other people with a bit of python
> knowledge) can easily add this to patman.

[snip]

>> It appears that patman is oriented toward using a single version ID
>> per series.  Simon - would it be possible to automatically add such
>> "no changes" information when generating the patches?
>
> A little motivation: Simon, you could earn yourself another beer the
> next time we meet! ;)

Sold :-) It's pretty trivial I think - I will take a look.

Re the threading, and this is to some extent a separate issue, if I am
resending a single patch, I sometimes copy in the message ID when
patman (actually git send-email, called by patman) asks for it. We
could perhaps automate this - in two ways:

1. Patman could automatically send only the patches that have changed
for v6 (I suggest that unless this is combined with some sort of
automatic patchwork state change, it could get a bit tricky for
maintainers since they will be applying many different patch versions
in a series). At present you have to manually type 'y' or 'n' to each
patch.

2. Patman could (with a bit of effort) attach the message ID for the
previous version of the patch to the 'in reply to' tag of the next
version. This would mean that each patch would be in reply to its
earlier version. My understanding was that this was not desirable, and
that it is better to have the series stand alone. I recall some
discussion on this.

It may be that neither of these is desirable.

>
> Thanks,
> Stefan

Regards,
Simon