2016-02-10 09:49, Bruce Richardson: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:47:55PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-02-09 21:15, Liming Sun: > > > Looks like this patch serie has been merged into dpdk-next-net/rel_16_04. > > > What would be the usual way to submit changes for new comments? Would it > > > be incremental changes (new commit) based on previous one? Thanks. > > > > Good question. > > I think it's better if Bruce drops or reverts the commits from dpdk-next-net > > to let you re-submit a better new version. > > Bruce, do you agree? > > Unless there is something actually broken - that was previously working - by > this patchset I'd rather not revert it. This patch was sitting acked for a > month > which is a reasonable time for comments before applying it. Allowing people to > step up post-apply and look for patches being reverted is not something we > want > to encourage IMHO. There are already too many reviews being done at the last > minute, and allowing reverts may make that situation worse, while applying > acked > patches within a reasonable time - irrespective of whether people subsequently > find issues with them - should encourage earlier reviews, and makes it easier > on > contributors.
Yes you are right. > Therefore I'd rather see any additional enhancements or changes > done as incremental patches on top of this set. > > Regards, > /Bruce >