On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:27:38AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 11:12:18AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
When CONFIG_SND_SOC_INTEL_SOUNDWIRE_SOF_MACH is enabled without CONFIG_EXPERT, there is a Kconfig warning about unmet dependencies:
To repeat what I already said in this thread: the reason this will have got buried last time is that you sent the prior version in reply to an old thread. This new version has also been sent in reply to an old thread which almost had the same effect. Please stop doing that, and also please pay attention to feedback.
Sorry, I was not meaning to ignore feedback. I interpreted "this was sent in reply..." as "Pierre-Louis's message was sent in reply..." not "the v2 patch was sent in reply...".
Please don't send new patches in reply to old patches or serieses, this makes it harder for both people and tools to understand what is going on - it can bury things in mailboxes and make it difficult to keep track of what current patches are, both for the new patches and the old ones.
For the record, the documentation for sending patches has the "Explicit In-Reply-To headers" section, which frowns on doing this for multi-patch series but never mentions this for single patches. I have never had a maintainer complain about me doing this in the over three years that I have been doing this. It is helpful for me as a developer to see the review history of a patch at times so keeping them altogether is nice but if this is going to be a problem, I'll just get in the habit of providing links to the previous postings on lore.kernel.org in the changelog section. Maybe the documentation could be updated to frown upon adding In-Reply-To headers to new versions of patches period? I can draft up a patch to clarify that.
Do you want me to resend v3 without an In-Reply-To header or can you pick it up as is?
Cheers, Nathan