Re: [PATCH 0/2] Acceptance test: update kernel used on m68k/q800 test

[Laurent Vivier]

Le 07/11/2019 à 17:38, Cleber Rosa a écrit :
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eric Blake" <address@hidden>
>> To: "Cleber Rosa" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>> Cc: "Peter Maydell" <address@hidden>, "Eduardo Habkost" <address@hidden>, 
>> "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé"
>> <address@hidden>, "Wainer dos Santos Moschetta" <address@hidden>, "Laurent 
>> Vivier" <address@hidden>,
>> "Willian Rampazzo" <address@hidden>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" 
>> <address@hidden>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:43:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Acceptance test: update kernel used on m68k/q800 
>> test
>>
>> On 10/29/19 6:23 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>> The boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_m68k_q800 was very
>>> recently merged, but between its last review and now, the Kernel
>>> package used went missing.
>>>
>>
>> meta-question: Why was this series posted in-reply-to the pull request,
>> rather than as a new top-level thread? I nearly missed it because I
>> don't expect to see unreviewed patches buried in threading like that.
>> My workflow would have been to post the series in isolation, then
>> manually reply to the pull request to mention the message-id of the
>> related series proposed as a followup.
>>
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> That was my attempt to signal that it was a fix to something which had *just*
> being merged as part of that pull request (though now caused by it).
> 
> I basically did not know how to act properly, so I thank you for the workflow
> suggestion.  I'll certainly follow it next time.

IMHO, you should send your series and then replies to the pull request
to tell you have sent your series that fixes the patch in the pull
request, or vice-versa.

But your series has been queued by Alex, so there is no problem...

Thanks,
Laurent