Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:14:30 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@intel.com>,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@gmail.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@linux.intel.com>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-5.15 v3] ASoC: Intel: boards: Fix
 CONFIG_SND_SOC_SDW_MOCKUP select
Message-ID: <YTI71k5EsyTgstkn@MSI.localdomain>
References: <20210802212409.3207648-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <20210902181217.2958966-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <20210903102738.GB4932@sirena.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210903102738.GB4932@sirena.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 11:12:18AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > When CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOUNDWIRE_SOF_MACH is enabled without
> > CONFIG_EXPERT, there is a Kconfig warning about unmet dependencies:
> 
> To repeat what I already said in this thread: the reason this will have
> got buried last time is that you sent the prior version in reply to an
> old thread.  This new version has also been sent in reply to an old
> thread which almost had the same effect.  Please stop doing that, and
> also please pay attention to feedback.

Sorry, I was not meaning to ignore feedback. I interpreted "this was
sent in reply..." as "Pierre-Louis's message was sent in reply..." not
"the v2 patch was sent in reply...".

> Please don't send new patches in reply to old patches or serieses, this
> makes it harder for both people and tools to understand what is going
> on - it can bury things in mailboxes and make it difficult to keep track
> of what current patches are, both for the new patches and the old ones.

For the record, the documentation for sending patches has the "Explicit
In-Reply-To headers" section, which frowns on doing this for multi-patch
series but never mentions this for single patches. I have never had a
maintainer complain about me doing this in the over three years that I
have been doing this. It is helpful for me as a developer to see the
review history of a patch at times so keeping them altogether is nice
but if this is going to be a problem, I'll just get in the habit of
providing links to the previous postings on lore.kernel.org in the
changelog section. Maybe the documentation could be updated to frown
upon adding In-Reply-To headers to new versions of patches period? I can
draft up a patch to clarify that.

Do you want me to resend v3 without an In-Reply-To header or can you
pick it up as is?

Cheers,
Nathan