>>> On 14.01.16 at 15:07, <car...@cardoe.com> wrote: > On 1/14/16 7:57 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 05:50 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> In any event - Doug, you should point out such dependencies in >>> the submission, e.g. after the first --- marker. >> >> Really they should have been in the same series in this case. > > They were all in the same thread. And were all acked. But the first one > against the tools shouldn't have been necessary, it should have still built.
Indeed I now see they were, but that's visible only in a threading capable mail client (which mine isn't). The patches should have been 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3, instead of the tools one being unnumbered and the hypervisor ones being 1/2 and 2/2. And the latest at the point where we had to revert the hypervisor ones (or when we were about to re-apply them) you should have shouted to tell us (me) that these got applied too early anyway. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
