On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 07:38:58PM +0200, Andreas F?rber wrote:
Yes, with that patch it's okay, you just forgot to mention that
dependency in your cover letter - also a change log from v1 is missing.
Instead of quoting Alex in the cover letter, you should've placed his
Acked-by before your Signed-off-by in the patches he ack'ed - unless you
did major changes there (e.g., uint8_t), in which case it shouldn't be
in the cover letter either. And please use [PATCH v5 n/m] as canonical
ordering. :)
You're right; the dependency was mentioned in the v4 cover letter, but
in retrospect it makes perfect sense I should have kept appending to that
content instead of using it as a place to reply to the last person who
commented on the previous version :)
Re. all that stuff you said about how to handle acked-by and
reviewed-by replies, is there a good spot where that process is
documented ? I noticed you all have a protocol in place for dealing
with that, but this is the first time I had a chance to screw it
up myself :) Googling around, I found this:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Does QEMU have its own, or is this what I need for future reference ?