Re: [PATCH] i2c: Support for Netlogic XLR/XLS I2C controller.
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 02:52:36PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 01:45:15PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > ...but note that opinions vary on bothering the versioning (it's not > > likely to actually annoy anyone though). > Huh, never heard of those. When digging old/lost/forgotten patches via > search engines, the versioning does help a lot, for example. Even when > going through huge mailboxes, I'd think this may help to prevent that Personally I've never found the version number added anything for any of that - the fact that it's vX doesn't say anything about vX+1 existing. > old patches are picked? What is the reasoning against versioning? I've not seen anyone actively objecting to it but it's certainly not universal that people want it. Mostly just due it not being worth the effort maintaining it, and the occasional confusion it can generate with new patches having old versions (eg, adding a new patch to an existing series). There's also sometimes the depression that comes from seeing large versions on what ought to be trivial patches. What does seem to be more of an issue is that tracking the versions of patches pushes people towards other behaviours which aren't great. The one I've really noticed is that quite a few new contributors seem to get the idea that both the version numbering and the series numbering get attached to a patch the first time it's posted so even when a series should be split (eg, because the core bit of the series which everything depends on got merged) so you see an individual patch posted as patch 3/4 or whatever.
Description: Digital signature