From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF764385840A for ; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:39:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AF764385840A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.crashing.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id 1A4Bcw2g011391; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 06:38:58 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id 1A4Bcvqd011390; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 06:38:57 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: gate.crashing.org: segher set sender to segher@kernel.crashing.org using -f Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 06:38:57 -0500 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= Cc: wschmidt@linux.ibm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rs6000: Remove unnecessary option manipulation. Message-ID: <20211104113857.GL614@gate.crashing.org> References: <2f57b5b5-3894-29b4-0e20-725bf273b496@suse.cz> <2715ef21-5d01-79bf-13c2-4b05a358cd41@linux.ibm.com> <20211019142342.GP614@gate.crashing.org> <060bea48-11b4-6c5e-7ac0-8e90d4689d9d@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <060bea48-11b4-6c5e-7ac0-8e90d4689d9d@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 11:40:00 -0000 On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 04:43:40PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 10/19/21 16:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 05:24:32PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > >>On 10/14/21 17:10, Bill Schmidt via Gcc-patches wrote: > >>>Looks like you got your parentheses wrong here. > >> > >>Whoops, thanks for the heads up. > >> > >>I'm testing this fixed version. > > > >Please start a new thread for every new patch (series). I missed this > >one like this, instead I reviewed the older one. > > Is it really best practice. My impression is that patch review (iterating > over > a patch) happens in the same thread (in most cases). It's caused by > discussion > in between sender reviewers. Yes, it is best practice. It is impossible to juggle multiple versions of a patch at once and not have some fall on the floor. > >[-- Attachment #2: > >0001-rs6000-Remove-unnecessary-option-manipulation.patch --] > >[-- Type: text/x-patch, Encoding: base64, Size: 2.6K --] > > Meh :) If I need a reply to somebody's questions, I always attach patch as > an attachment. > And I can't likely influence how Thunderbird is going to mark it. You should not use base64. This is documented. Patches in the archive will not show up either that way. > Anyway, sending updated version of the patch. Not in a reply please. If nothing else, this makes it hard for other people to apply your patches (to test them out, or to actually commit them upstream). Segher