From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <keith.wiles@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE98CC85A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:05:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2015 07:05:56 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,671,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="487194859"
Received: from orsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.133])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2015 07:05:39 -0700
Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.204) by
 ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS)
 id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:05:39 -0700
Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.26]) by
 FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.29]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002;
 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 07:05:38 -0700
From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio"
 <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] Simplify the ifdefs in rte.app.mk.
Thread-Index: AQHQgdV3OMq6zMIrAE6qoRa4c/+gBZ1kO9CAgAAPoACAAAwDAP//0YoA
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:05:38 +0000
Message-ID: <D1664F3C.1E3F3%keith.wiles@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>
 <CA+PrjLFdSMyzNcrvD4cU_PPSXQSbot+cTSrfPrGJCaRwLebzEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+PrjLFdSMyzNcrvD4cU_PPSXQSbot+cTSrfPrGJCaRwLebzEg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [10.252.204.210]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9A000E6605BD6247A83E0A28A0F9A4BA@intel.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 14:05:58 -0000



On 4/29/15, 6:51 AM, "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:

>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.

OK, will send a new patch with the correct version.
>