Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/15 v2] makefiles: Fixed -share command line option error

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

2014-05-02 09:01, Neil Horman:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:22:17PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2014-05-02 07:09, Neil Horman:
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:42:12AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > > 2014-04-16 09:51, Neil Horman:
> > > > > The shared libraries built with the current makefile set produce
> > > > > static
> > > > > libraries rather than actual shared objects.  This is due to several
> > > > > missing options that are required to correctly build shared objects
> > > > > using ld, as well as a mis-specified -share option (which should be
> > > > > -shared). Switching to the use of CC rather than LD and fixing the
> > > > > -shared option corrects these problems and builds the DSOs
> > > > > correctly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Applied for version 1.6.0r2.
> > > 
> > > So, I just went and looked at 1.6.0r2 and noted that you applied this
> > > patch, but the rest of the series is still missing.  This is what I was
> > > talking about earlier when I said you weren't applying patch series
> > > atomically.  It makes it impossible to have any clue what the upstream
> > > development head is going to look like.  On top of that, since you're
> > > clearly integrating other changes ahead of this, theres every
> > > likelyhood the rest of my v5 series won't apply.
> > > 
> > > the v5 series has sat out here for a few weeks now without comment. If
> > > there aren't any objections to it, apply it.  Whats the problem here? 
> > > I'm not going to package the DPDK until this series (or the
> > > functionality it offers) is in place.
> > 
> > This patch is clearly an important fix. So I took it for release 1.6.0r2.
> > The other patches of the serie are enhancements which will be in 1.7.0.
> > 
> > The goal is to change the integration model.
> > Now we'll stop integrating enhancements and big changes when first release
> > candidate is out. Then it will be clear that only fixes and mandatory
> > changes will be integrated in the last part of the release cycle.
> > 
> > I hope you agree we're improving the workflow.
> 
> Apologies to you Thomas, and the rest of the 6wind list.  He just explained
> to me that patch applications ni 1.6.0r2 aren't inherited by 1.7.0 so the
> entire patch series will need to be reapplied to 1.7.0.

Sorry, you misunderstood :)
I'm starting a master branch from 1.6.0r2.
So the rest of you serie will be applied on master branch where 1.7.0 is going 
to live.
I won't split patch serie anymore.

Apologies for the confusion.
-- 
Thomas