On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 02:00, Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:25:33PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > When I applied this locally, I used this patch as a replacement for the > > > last patch of v3 [1]. That kept everything passing after each patch. > > > > Oh, so this is a replacement for 5/5 and 1-4/5 of v4 are supposed to > > be identical to those from v3? The difference between [v3 5/5] and > > this one is a single typofix on the subject line, it seems, though. > > Yes, at least that's what I interpreted it as (and how I applied it when > testing). I'd like to hear from the author to make sure. > I think I messed up the versions. Its correct that v4 patch was only replacement for 5/5 (5th patch) of v3, since I need to fix the typo error of subject line. Also, other 4 patches (1-4/5) of v3 need to be remain same in v4. > (As an aside to the author, I often fall into the trap of thinking that > it will be easier to send a single replacement patch which will generate > less email, but--as you can see--it is often more complicated for > reviewers and the maintainer to decipher what's going on. It's often > just easier to re-submit the entire series and include in your cover > letter "this is unchanged from v(n-1) except for ..."). > Yes I realized this, actually earlier I was doubtful about whether to include the previous version's correct patches in the new version or not. I might have confirmed this before sending. But now I will strictly follow this . Thanks a lot to Junio and Taylor for pointing this out. And in order to correct this, I will send the new patch series having (v3 1-4/5]+[v4]). Please correct me, if I missed out anything else. > > >> As you've demonstrated through the microproject that you can now > > >> comfortably be involved in the review discussion, I am tempted to > > >> suggest that we declare victory at this point and move on, but I > > >> don't know what the plans are for the other 4 patches (I guess we > > >> won't miss them that much---the micros are meant to be practice > > >> targets). > > > > > > Yup, ditto. > > > > As [v4] single patch won't apply standalone, we cannot quite declare > > the victory yet. Are [v3 1-5/5] (or [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]) good to the > > reviewers of the past rounds? > > For what it's worth, I'm happy with [v3 1-4/5] + [v4]. > > Thanks, > Taylor Thanks and Regards, Charvi
