From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com
 [209.85.213.177]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749A0C836
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:51:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by igbyr2 with SMTP id yr2so115848633igb.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 04:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=52YSoLRW0TcaqoLX29UeTgTJh0xw7FINExK28VtRZM8=;
 b=RdD+Ok7EYp+M8oqGIgGF0UEoa5STb2FoRnJ4oOz5XP/IJwJodZ9FmBQedVe44Bantd
 QmGtXJOija88Z0vSs2hQDhF5P5FAMFowHlu12BXI36x4jXr0x1+XJQohZhyCMmoG1DrE
 OzaLx2kf34kfEtIR8SPTFis0MwqAkvjebQcn2kXE2N8rYrMSxMoQMInCcdLiCDtYn1J6
 R1y2W9kOkhW4oW/pU+/m3LVpdBdZ63cCa5Y1mlBtXpjopiRe1JpswLrORWJJ3ZZQgCdg
 nCemb9DNEiQKaHNntHNKnB6luF+0SHsT9f+xSladeKPdk4WwMKFRIJo4gama/+SoG5hs
 Fm1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmSWP9G9IwYroYsEeBX6TjXmGWEJcBSsfZJq2kLcr3zVlt7/wFxE8NTrWF4al8IL88yMOn
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.81.6 with SMTP id x6mr2986832ick.89.1430308314900; Wed,
 29 Apr 2015 04:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.159.75 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 04:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5540BBC6.3090008@intel.com>
References: <1430240597-26782-1-git-send-email-keith.wiles@intel.com>
 <CA+PrjLEFpvOLS4rn=0MOOvXrW-rXK28Q3H+peq1Wrobg-kLtWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5540BBC6.3090008@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:51:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+PrjLFdSMyzNcrvD4cU_PPSXQSbot+cTSrfPrGJCaRwLebzEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Simplify the ifdefs in rte.app.mk.
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:51:55 -0000

2015-04-29 13:08 GMT+02:00 Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
<sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>:
> On 29/04/2015 11:12, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> It seems this is the second version of your patch.
>> Please add v2 prefix and a changelog to ease review and
>> patch management.
>> As you probably know, it is explained here:
>>      http://dpdk.org/dev#send
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Just to clarify as I tend to use RFC PATCH as well, do we still mark it as
> v2 even though the first patch was an RFC PATCH?

Yes it's clearer to include RFC PATCH in versioning.
RFC is only a keyword to highlight the desire of debating and/or
improving with review comments.
So I think RFC patch should be considered as the number one. Adding v1
is possible.