On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 1:25 PM Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:42 AM Charvi Mendiratta <charvi077@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 13:00, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > These changes are still worthwhile and can easily be done > > > incrementally atop what is already in next, I would think. > > > > I agree, these fixes are required. So, I am not sure but now to do these > > fixup shall I send another patch cleaning this patch series(v4) and rebase the > > patch on the 'next' branch ? Is it the right way ? > > Yeah, I think you can send each of the above 3 changes in a different > patch on top of the 'next' branch. That would create a new 3 patch > long series, which you should give a new name and not consider v5 of > the previous patch series. Yes, whatever issues from my reviews seem worth fixing atop the existing v4 can be included in this new patch series. (I think there may have been a few things beyond the three listed in the v5 cover letter, but I didn't bother doing a full audit of my review emails, so I could be wrong.) As Christian said, just make it a new series, though be sure to build it atop your v4 rather than building it atop "next". (The problem with building atop "next" is that your series then gets held hostage by _every_ series already in "next", which makes it nearly impossible for your series to graduate to "master" since it can't graduate until every other existing series in "next" graduates to "master".) The one other important thing is to mention in the cover letter that your new series is built atop "cm/rebase-i", which lets Junio know where to place the new series when he picks it up (and also lets reviewers know where to apply it if they want to test it themselves).
