Am 28.01.25 um 15:46 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > (short question: is going from rfc -> v2 alright with you? or should i do > rfc -> v1 -> v2 in the future? looking at my past series i did both, but would > like to do that consistently. maybe it's even a thing to write in the dev > docs?)
Good question! We do not have this pattern that often so I do not have some specific and well thought out opinion for our use case, but I can say this: - most developers on other projects using our development (mailing list based) flow, like e.g. Linux Kernel or QEMU, reset the revision when switching from an RFC to a PATCH. FWIW though, as this is what I observed subjectively, I did not collect some unbiased statistic. - I can see benefits for keep bumping the revision like you did, as one is indirectly made aware that there was something before the first submission of a series after switching from RFC to PATCH. The "changes from rfc" wording you used for the changelog also made this quite clear. - OTOH that could be also addressed by linking at the previous submission(s), something that seems also quite popular for aforementioned projects. For now, I'm fine with either variant, no strong preference either way, albeit being able to extract the information from a submission that a switch happened, be it through a good changelog title like you used and/or a link to the previous submission, would be definitively really good to have–to not say a must-have. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
