On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:02 PM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13-Feb-19 10:58 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh > > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 13-Feb-19 9:03 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > We don't do rebasing for published changes. Only in rear cases when > > otherwise would be worse. > > Darren didn't respond to my question what he thinks about this case, > > but at least it's not related to the code itself which, in my opinion, > > decreases a severity. > > Thanks Andy. So if i understand correctly, you are suggesting that i > should ignore those patches that made to "for-next" branch already? I suggest you to rebase your local branch against latest subsystem tip branch, resolve conflicts if any, test, and only after that send a new version. > So should i just send a v3 comprising of remaining 5 patches and of > course, addressing recent review comments? I dunno how many patches you will get after rebasing. It might be 5, might be more, might be less. You decide what will be in next version. Just carefully describe the changes in the log. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
