Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivar...@gmail.com> writes: > I should have been a little more clear with the numbering, sorry. The > correct prefix should have been as follows, > > * [PATCH v2 1/2] --> [PATCH v2 3/3] > > * [PATCH v2 1/2] --> [PATCH v2 4/3] > > Sorry for the inconvenience.
I assume that the second one above actually talks about what was sent as "v2 2/2" (not "v2 1/2") being "4/3"? Are these two patches follow-up fixes (replacement of 3/3 plus an extra patch) to jc/branch-name-sanity topic? Thanks for working on these.
