Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <59bbc7c4-2caf-205e-c968-13dffccea3aa@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:01:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Why no v2?
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Daniel Matyas <daniel.matyas@analog.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230913152135.457892-1-daniel.matyas@analog.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230913152135.457892-1-daniel.matyas@analog.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/13/23 08:21, Daniel Matyas wrote:
> This is kind of v2, but not exactly. Major changes were applied and
> commits were separated. The latter is the main reason why I did not call
> this v2.
> 

That is neither a reason nor a valid argument. Just call it v2 and mark
the added patch(es) with a changelog along the line of "v2: Added patch".

And a subject of "Why no v2?" is really useless and pointless.

Guenter