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 17:26:39 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@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: <20210903162639.GM4932@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20210802212409.3207648-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <20210902181217.2958966-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <20210903102738.GB4932@sirena.org.uk>
 <YTI71k5EsyTgstkn@MSI.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="um2V5WpqCyd73IVb"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YTI71k5EsyTgstkn@MSI.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--um2V5WpqCyd73IVb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 08:14:30AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:

> 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

I don't *mind*, there's just a chance I won't notice a patch that
appears in the middle of a thread which submitters tend to mind - the
issue is that I'm blissfully unaware.  It was more that you were doing
the exact same thing again in response to it being explicitly identified
as an issue.

> 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.

Not everyone has a process which causes issues here (and even for me I'd
only notice if the old thread was still in my inbox), but I certainly
wouldn't be against it.  Note that if you're trying to make everything
super rules based you also need to cover the case of people trying to
incrementally fix a series by sending new versions of patches in the
middle of it which is an even worse mess.

--um2V5WpqCyd73IVb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmEyTL4ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DZhwf8CTpPqMVMNlBp0ILOIUynnedLfqBM8DUbquKMsQ18R4nQxPK1F+axx0q1
1Ya36cGShO54vRHMQYNekWi58MwDyLB4Nik64vhQEyn5hAWYf5ydL3GxuAyXePGV
f2wD7AFE2FDx475lWV3GMKJHN2g0kZeiDQDTFe4h5wEEME/g+eShfRnnPISn/0+x
SRE8fSs1eEkdScgs1e5p3cJ+w3QnzvhvHuPaxCbDhkQ4viSfJ1tcmcISpGqo5jVF
shdWTiy7LXn/g/eWqKv/ZAXrJ8DVRkK4yfUxhrrxcw7SDGV8EwD4GcOc1J3NYVZy
/L1J7J8UDsqXUyd5Nsba4f7RVZT7Iw==
=3M0P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--um2V5WpqCyd73IVb--