Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99440-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:52:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
 Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com>, Linus Walleij
 <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Alvin =?UTF-8?B?xaBpcHJhZ2E=?=
 <alsi@bang-olufsen.dk>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Florian Fainelli
 <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>, "David S.
 Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: dsa: realtek: keep default LED state
 in rtl8366rb
Message-ID: <20240311115228.5ad9db52@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240311-chowchow-of-premium-piety-9e4a0d@lemur>
References: <20240310-realtek-led-v1-0-4d9813ce938e@gmail.com>
	<20240310-realtek-led-v1-2-4d9813ce938e@gmail.com>
	<388b435f-13c5-446f-b265-6da98ccfd313@kernel.org>
	<20240310113738.GA1623@kernel.org>
	<09793a72-bfe5-4cb5-a6da-ffee565e6956@kernel.org>
	<20240311091111.53191e08@kernel.org>
	<20240311-chowchow-of-premium-piety-9e4a0d@lemur>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:40:44 -0400 Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:11:11AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > OK, then this is v2. RFC is state of patch, not some sort of version. Or
> > > just use b4 which handles this automatically...  
> > 
> > Eh, hum. He does according to the X-Mailer header. More importantly
> > I thought the RFC to PATCH transition resetting version numbering
> > is how we always operated. Maybe b4 should be fixed?  
> 
> There is no way to make it work reliably the way you propose,

Could you describe what the problem is?
Cover letter + date seems like fairly strong signal to me.

> so I strongly suggest that we do it the way b4 currently works:
> 
> - a series can start with RFC in the prefixes to indicate that it's not
>   something to be considered for inclusion
> - when the author feels that the series is ready for maintainers'
>   consideration, they simply drop the RFC and keep the same change-id and
>   versioning info; e.g. [PATCH RFC v3] -> [PATCH v4]

It's not a pain point for networking.

While I have you - it'd be great if the patchwork bot did not
repeatedly set patches to Superseded. Sometimes we want to keep and
apply non-latest version, because the latest version was posted based
on non-expert review, or we changed our mind.

> Resetting the versioning requires resetting the change-id of the series, or a
> lot of automation breaks.

What is "change-id of the series"?