On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 04:43:40PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/19/21 16:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 05:24:32PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > >>On 10/14/21 17:10, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>Looks like you got your parentheses wrong here. > >> > >>Whoops, thanks for the heads up. > >> > >>I'm testing this fixed version. > > > >Please start a new thread for every new patch (series). I missed this > >one like this, instead I reviewed the older one. > > Is it really best practice. My impression is that patch review (iterating > over > a patch) happens in the same thread (in most cases). It's caused by > discussion > in between sender reviewers.
Yes, it is best practice. It is impossible to juggle multiple versions of a patch at once and not have some fall on the floor. > >[-- Attachment #2: > >0001-rs6000-Remove-unnecessary-option-manipulation.patch --] > >[-- Type: text/x-patch, Encoding: base64, Size: 2.6K --] > > Meh :) If I need a reply to somebody's questions, I always attach patch as > an attachment. > And I can't likely influence how Thunderbird is going to mark it. You should not use base64. This is documented. Patches in the archive will not show up either that way. > Anyway, sending updated version of the patch. Not in a reply please. If nothing else, this makes it hard for other people to apply your patches (to test them out, or to actually commit them upstream). Segher
