On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:50:37PM +0200, Simon Guinot wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 01:01:44PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > I'm pretty sure this isn't the first version of this patch series ;-) > > No need to resend, but could you attach a version number and changelog? > > Yes, you are right. For the second patch, it is the second version. > But all the other patches are at their first version. Then the whole > patch series is more a v1 than a v2. I am always embarrassed when the > patches versions are not the same within a series... Yes, it makes my skin crawl when I send something out like that as well. My rule of thumb is that if the patch subject matter is still identical to the previous version, then I only increment that patch. If suggested changes cause a reshuffle of the whole series, then I just increment the version number across the board. In this case, incrementing the first patch would have been fine. > If you agree, I will reply against the second patch in order to > underline the changes. Perfect. thx, Jason. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-leds" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
