Re: [PATCH 00/22] Cleanup and splitting of xl.cfg parsing

[Elliott Mitchell <ehem+xen@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 10:35:53AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> Some of the patches looks to have been posted previously as a 7-patch
> series. It would have been nice if therefore this one was marked as
> v2, indicating in a revision log what the differences are. It appears
> as if at least one out of those 7 earlier patches was dropped (or
> maybe assimilated into another one).

Indeed.  Problem is several tags could potentially have been used.
Should I have used all of them simultaneously?  Should I have used only
some of them?  Which subset?

Several were mildly adjusted, so it could have been marked "v2".

No one responded at all to the previous round, so this could have been
marked "RESEND".

Yet the refinements and general changes are large enough for the series
to be pretty distinct.

I didn't know which way to go, so with no idea which option to choose the
last one ended up winning out.  Perhaps that was wrong yet I've still no
feedback on the actual patches.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg@xxxxxxx  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445