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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 03.08.2023 18:13, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> 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.

As, for this series, being just in the role of a committer, without clearly
identifying that some earlier patches can now be dropped from the list of
things which need monitoring, you're making my (in that regard) supposedly
purely mechanical job harder (and presumably every other committer's as
well). As to not getting feedback: Your posting (at least the cover letter)
dates back to July 19. That's not all that long compared to other series.
Plus if you were concerned, you could have pinged the respective
maintainers.

Jan