On 4/29/15, 6:51 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> wrote:
>2015-04-29 13:08 GMT+02:00 Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio ><sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com>: >> On 29/04/2015 11:12, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> It seems this is the second version of your patch. >>> Please add v2 prefix and a changelog to ease review and >>> patch management. >>> As you probably know, it is explained here: >>> http://dpdk.org/dev#send >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Just to clarify as I tend to use RFC PATCH as well, do we still mark it >>as >> v2 even though the first patch was an RFC PATCH? > >Yes it's clearer to include RFC PATCH in versioning. >RFC is only a keyword to highlight the desire of debating and/or >improving with review comments. >So I think RFC patch should be considered as the number one. Adding v1 >is possible. OK, will send a new patch with the correct version. >
