From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Fischer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Patchwork Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:36:59 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1480433534.13949.71.camel@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3440056709870895118==" List-Id: --===============3440056709870895118== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, on my behalf, also: thanks to Jonatan! I could have done this by myself but I was never really sure, which patches I should mark 'superseded' and which not. What rules can I follow? Exactly *when* can I mark a patch this way? Best, Matthias On 29.11.2016 16:32, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hi, >=20 > just as a reminder, I would like to say that I very much support this. >=20 > Patchwork is not "just another project" were the patches are and should rot= . It > is supposed to help us keeping things tidy and have a clue about what has b= een > submitted and reviewed by whom. >=20 > Thank you Jonatan for going through this and cleaning up after us all. I de= arly > hope that we will be able to keep this tidier from now on. >=20 > Best, > -Michael >=20 > On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 15:27 +0100, Jonatan Schlag wrote: >> Hi,=20 >> some members of this list got or will get some emails from our patchwork a= nd >> maybe wonder why the patches were superseded. >> I will try to explain why these emails were sent out. >> I updated some (i think around 20 to 30) patches, because >> - the version in git is newer than the version of the the patch or >> - there is a new version of this patch or >> - the patch was not correctly caught from the mail (There were 2 patches = this >> happen) and so the patch was more than one time in patchwork or >> - the patch belong to dnsmasq >>=20 >> Regards Jonatan >=20 --===============3440056709870895118==--