On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 11:12:18AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > When CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOUNDWIRE_SOF_MACH is enabled without > > CONFIG_EXPERT, there is a Kconfig warning about unmet dependencies: > > To repeat what I already said in this thread: the reason this will have > got buried last time is that you sent the prior version in reply to an > old thread. This new version has also been sent in reply to an old > thread which almost had the same effect. Please stop doing that, and > also please pay attention to feedback. Sorry, I was not meaning to ignore feedback. I interpreted "this was sent in reply..." as "Pierre-Louis's message was sent in reply..." not "the v2 patch was sent in reply...". > Please don't send new patches in reply to old patches or serieses, this > makes it harder for both people and tools to understand what is going > on - it can bury things in mailboxes and make it difficult to keep track > of what current patches are, both for the new patches and the old ones. For the record, the documentation for sending patches has the "Explicit In-Reply-To headers" section, which frowns on doing this for multi-patch series but never mentions this for single patches. I have never had a maintainer complain about me doing this in the over three years that I have been doing this. It is helpful for me as a developer to see the review history of a patch at times so keeping them altogether is nice but if this is going to be a problem, I'll just get in the habit of providing links to the previous postings on lore.kernel.org in the changelog section. Maybe the documentation could be updated to frown upon adding In-Reply-To headers to new versions of patches period? I can draft up a patch to clarify that. Do you want me to resend v3 without an In-Reply-To header or can you pick it up as is? Cheers, Nathan
