Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2023 22:14:07 +0200 | From | Vladimir Oltean <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mt7530: don't change PVC_EG_TAG when CPU port becomes VLAN-aware |
| |
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:07:14PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Tue, 2023-02-07 at 14:39 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 11:56:13AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > Thank you Vladimir for the quick turn-around! > > > > > > For future case, please avoid replying with new patches - tag area > > > included - to existing patch/thread, as it confuses tag propagation, > > > thanks! > > > > Ah, yes, I see (and thanks for fixing it up). > > > > Although I need to ask, since I think I made legitimate use of the tools > > given to me. What should I have done instead? Post an RFC patch (even > > though I didn't know whether it worked or not) in a thread separate to > > the debugging session? I didn't want to diverge from the thread reporting > > the issue. Maybe we should have started a new thread, decoupled from the > > patch? > > Here what specifically confused the bot were the additional tags > present in the debug patch. One possible alternative would have been > posting - in the same thread - the code of the tentative patch without > the formal commit message/tag area. > > That option is quite convenient toome, as writing the changelog takes > me a measurable amount of time and I could spend that effort only when > the patch is finalize/tested. > > Please let me know if the above makes sense to you.
I think even the Signed-off-by would confuse the patchwork bot, right? I would have to send just the diff portion, and send the full patch as an email attachment.
In any case, I'll pay attention to this next time.
| |