On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 6:38 AM Yanteng Si <siyanteng@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What I mean is that if I translate these two patches as two separate > patches, Ah, I see. As far as I know and from a quick look at the history, the translations try to be in sync with the latest non-translated status at their own pace, and they don't mimic the development of the non-translated side commit-by-commit. So I don't think particular commits should be translated as separate patches. In other words, what you did here in this v2 seems fine, since it already contains the "final state". Of course, there is a small risk of going out of sync with the current patch series if e.g. the RISC-V PR does not get eventually merged in the next merge window. This is why I mentioned that I am not sure what the policy is for translations here (e.g. there may be a requirement that patches to be applied to translations have been already applied to mainline, in which case you may want to send the RISC-V bit later -- but I don't know what the actual policy is). Thanks! Cheers, Miguel
