Thanks Marcel for the reply, I will do as what you said , thank you.
regards.
tim
On 2021-10-28 22:00, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
Hi Matthias,
the previous patch is submitted by zijun , as he is not working on
this
project, I take over his job, so can we assume abandon the previous
patch,
using my new patch ? thank you.
regards.
Your patch is clearly based on zijun's one, it even has the same
subject. A
change of authorship shouldn't result in resetting the version number,
it's
still the same patch/series. You can always add a 'Co-developed-by:'
tag to
indicate that someone else contributed to a patch, or use a 'From:'
tag if
you only made minor changes on top of someone else's work.
I really don’t care much since that is for them and their company
policy to figure out.
Not sure how to proceed best with the version number, especially since
there
are already 3 versions of the 'new' patch. Either option can create
confusion,
I guess you can continue with the new scheme, it seems the patch is
almost
ready to land anyway.
It is a total mess already for a dead simple patch like this. And they
keep messing it up differently every time.
I provided a btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name() in one of my replies, where
the variant variable was declared without NULL assignment and the
ram_version was converted from little endian in place. That was 28th
of September and 4 patches later the patch is still not ready to be
merged. The maintainer hands you the recipe and you still screw up the
cake multiple times; I am just done with this.
The next version would be a v16 btw. So seriously, how can we have 15
revisions so far and still not have this in a mergable state?
Regards
Marcel
