On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 01:49:15PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 08:25:57AM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:43:56AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 12:39:08AM +0100, Guru Mehar Rachaputi wrote: > > > good luck! > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Thanks for taking time. > > > > If my understanding is correct, every version of the patch should > > include all the patches/patchfiles and it should explain what happened in each > > version(in decrement order) through a coverletter. Please correct me otherwise. > > Hi Guru, > Other than the cover letter, each individual patch should also include the patch > version history in the descending order. If a specific patch(es) that is/are > part of a patch-set, did not have any change, we should still increment its > version and record "none" as the change in current version for such patches. > > However, from the patch-set, any patches that are acked, do not need to be > resent along with other patches that are still under revision. But do mentioned > about such accepted/acked patches in the cover letter. > > Hope this helps. > > Thanks, > deepak. > > > > > I do refer "first patch submission" and above is my current > > understanding. > > > > -- > > Thanks & Regards, > > Guru > > > > Thanks for the info, deepak. Is is possible for you to share some reference that is easy to understand. It would be helpful. -- Thanks & Regards, Guru
