Hi Matthias,
>> the previous patch is submitted by zijun , as he is not working on this
>> project, I take over his job, so can we assume abandon the previous patch,
>> using my new patch ? thank you.
>> regards.
>
> Your patch is clearly based on zijun's one, it even has the same subject. A
> change of authorship shouldn't result in resetting the version number, it's
> still the same patch/series. You can always add a 'Co-developed-by:' tag to
> indicate that someone else contributed to a patch, or use a 'From:' tag if
> you only made minor changes on top of someone else's work.
I really don’t care much since that is for them and their company policy to figure out.
> Not sure how to proceed best with the version number, especially since there
> are already 3 versions of the 'new' patch. Either option can create confusion,
> I guess you can continue with the new scheme, it seems the patch is almost
> ready to land anyway.
It is a total mess already for a dead simple patch like this. And they keep messing it up differently every time.
I provided a btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name() in one of my replies, where the variant variable was declared without NULL assignment and the ram_version was converted from little endian in place. That was 28th of September and 4 patches later the patch is still not ready to be merged. The maintainer hands you the recipe and you still screw up the cake multiple times; I am just done with this.
The next version would be a v16 btw. So seriously, how can we have 15 revisions so far and still not have this in a mergable state?
Regards
Marcel
Thanks Marcel for the reply, I will do as what you said , thank you.
regards.
tim
On 2021-10-28 22:00, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
>>> the previous patch is submitted by zijun , as he is not working on
>>> this
>>> project, I take over his job, so can we assume abandon the previous
>>> patch,
>>> using my new patch ? thank you.
>>> regards.
>>
>> Your patch is clearly based on zijun's one, it even has the same
>> subject. A
>> change of authorship shouldn't result in resetting the version number,
>> it's
>> still the same patch/series. You can always add a 'Co-developed-by:'
>> tag to
>> indicate that someone else contributed to a patch, or use a 'From:'
>> tag if
>> you only made minor changes on top of someone else's work.
>
> I really don’t care much since that is for them and their company
> policy to figure out.
>
>> Not sure how to proceed best with the version number, especially since
>> there
>> are already 3 versions of the 'new' patch. Either option can create
>> confusion,
>> I guess you can continue with the new scheme, it seems the patch is
>> almost
>> ready to land anyway.
>
> It is a total mess already for a dead simple patch like this. And they
> keep messing it up differently every time.
>
> I provided a btusb_generate_qca_nvm_name() in one of my replies, where
> the variant variable was declared without NULL assignment and the
> ram_version was converted from little endian in place. That was 28th
> of September and 4 patches later the patch is still not ready to be
> merged. The maintainer hands you the recipe and you still screw up the
> cake multiple times; I am just done with this.
>
> The next version would be a v16 btw. So seriously, how can we have 15
> revisions so far and still not have this in a mergable state?
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel