On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 at 00:27, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). Got it, Thanks !
