On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 15:44 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 15:35:09 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-12-15 at 14:58 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2021 22:14:11 +0000 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > > > > already posted before : > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20211201193621.9129-1- > > > > saeed@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211208141722.13646-1- > > > > shayd@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Post them as a reply to the pull request like you usually do, > > > please. > > > > They were already posted, and reviewed, and all maintainers were > > CC'ed, > > including you, why do you want me to spam the mailing list over and > > over again with the same patches ? > > You reposting measly 5 patches is hardly spamming. I have scripts > which That's not the point, sometimes it is less or much more than 5. For mlx5-next (Shared branch between RDMA and netdev), I would like to submit standard clean PRs like all other maintainers. > check if the contents of the PR match the posting, which obviously > can't follow random links from the email. > The script is great to validate pseudo-PRs (netdev only) where we post patches for the first time in the PR. but this is different, this is a true clean PR where all patches already posted and reviewed. the tree is already written genuinely in ink! > > This is not how genuine pull requests are supposed to work. > > I'm not comfortable with blindly pulling patches from vendor trees. Good to know and very disappointing, is there anything i could do to make you better trust my mlx5-next PRs ? other than RE-posting ? Again I don't see any point of RE-posting the patches together with a clean PR, redundant and unnecessary and against all standards, it just cancels the whole process and duplicates my work, and will confuse other maintainers who might have already pulled part or all of the patches in the branch.
