29/10/2018 11:16, Jerin Jacob: > From: "Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China)" <gavin...@arm.com> > > > > Hi Thomas and Jerin, > > > > The patches were extensively reviewed by Arm internally, as the 1st patch > > was not able to be concluded, I created a new patch series(2 patches). > > How can I clean up this mess? > > 1. make all the previous patches Superseded? > > 2. We have two more new patches, should I submit the 4 patches (the old 2 > > patches + 2 new patches) with V2? > > I would suggest to supersede the old patches(not in this case, in any case > when you > send new version and update the version number).
Why not in this case? There are some old patches in patchwork which should be superseded. > I would suggest send new patches as separate series. If it has dependency on > exiting Acked patches please mention that in cover letter. I would suggest also to stop top-posting, it doesn't help reading threads. > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > 27/10/2018 17:00, Jerin Jacob: > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > > 17/10/2018 08:35, Gavin Hu (Arm Technology China): > > > > > > > Hi Jerin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the 1st one of the 3-patch set was not concluded, I submit > > > > > > > this 2- > > > patch series to unblock the merge. > > > > > > > > > > > > The thread is totally messed up because: > > > > > > - there is no cover letter > > > > > > - some different series (testpmd, i40e and doc) are in the > > > > > > same > > > thread > > > > > > - v4 replies to a different series > > > > > > - this version should be a v5 but has no number > > > > > > - this version replies to the v3 > > > > > > - patchwork still shows v3 and "v5" > > > > > > - replies from Ola are not quoting previous discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > Because of all of this, it is really difficult to follow. > > > > > > This is probably the reason of the lack of review outside of Arm. > > > > > > > > > > > > One more issue: you must Cc the relevant maintainers. > > > > > > Here: > > > > > > - Olivier for rte_ring > > > > > > - Chao for IBM platform > > > > > > - Bruce and Konstantin for x86 > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, it is really cool to have more Arm developpers in DPDK. > > > > > > But please consider better formatting your discussions, it is > > > > > > really important in our contribution workflow. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what to do. > > > > > > I suggest to wait for more feedbacks and integrate it in -rc2. > > > > > > > > > > This series has been acked and tested. Sure, if we are looking for > > > > > some more feedback we can push to -rc2 if not it a good candidate to > > > > > be selected for -rc1. > > > > > > > > It has been acked and tested only for Arm platforms. > > > > And Olivier, the ring maintainer, was not Cc. > > > > > > > > I feel it is not enough. > > > > > > Sure, More reviews is already better. But lets keep as -rc2 target. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > > information in any medium. Thank you.
