On 08/16/2011 06:56 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> How about a patch that was sent, that at the time didn't depend on
>>> another series, but after review and changes, now depends on those
>>> changes?
>> Then you have to note it in the version history that it now depends on
>> another patch - don't fo
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 02:06 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote:
>> On 08/16/2011 03:20 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>>> Even a bit more generally, some of the series are getting quite long
>>> due to small dependencies. This tends to put lots of unrelated
>>> cont
On 08/16/2011 02:06 AM, Simon Schwarz wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 08/16/2011 03:20 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>> Hi u-boot,
>>
>> What is the recommended way to handle a patch series that depends on
>> another patch series (already sent but not integrated)?
>>
> AFAIK the recommend way is to note in t
Hi Joe,
On 08/16/2011 03:20 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> Hi u-boot,
>
> What is the recommended way to handle a patch series that depends on
> another patch series (already sent but not integrated)?
>
AFAIK the recommend way is to note in the patch that it depends on
another - best with some kind
Hi u-boot,
What is the recommended way to handle a patch series that depends on
another patch series (already sent but not integrated)?
How about a patch that was sent, that at the time didn't depend on
another series, but after review and changes, now depends on those
changes?
Even a bit more g
5 matches
Mail list logo