On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:11:17 -0500 Sam Winchenbach <sam.winchenbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:34:11PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:17:11 -0500 > > Sam Winchenbach <sam.winchenbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Corrects the upper range of LPF Band 4 from 18.5 GHz to 18.85 GHz per > > > the ADMV8818 datasheet > > > > > Hi Sam, > > > > Just a trivial process thing. If you are sending updated code > > and there isn't an obvious reason why when someone looks at the > > old patch set (e.g. no reviews asking for changes etc) please > > reply to that. > > > > At times where reviewers (such as me on this occasion) are running > > way behind they might look at wrong version otherwise. > > > > Jonathan > > Hi Jonathan, > > Just to clarify, if I update the patches in, for example v2, then I should > reply to the v2 email with the new patch set? > > That makes sense... it looks like I can use: "--in-reply-to=<Message-id>" with > git send-email. No, not that! That needs to nested mess in complex threads. A simple reply from an email client to say that you are revisting for 'x' reason is fine and that you either have or are about to post v3. Thanks, Jonathan > > Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. > > Thanks, > -Sam
