[PATCH] newlib: m68k-atari-elf, fixed naming bug in defines

[Corinna Vinschen]

Hi Mikael,

On Nov 29 15:48, micael@hildenborg.com wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
> 
> I'm sorry for causing confusion and taking up unnecessary time. Try to
> see this as a comical example of my autism spectrum shining through...

Naah, no worries. Shit happens.

> The patch was a follow up to a mail from John Johnston on the 17th
> november, where he found a problem with one out of fixe patches I
> mailed. So obviously I should have replied to him and not posted it
> directly on the mailing list.

Ah, ok, that would have been better, perhaps, but it doesn't matter
anymore, so again, no worries.

> But while we are at it I might as well ask what the proper procedure
> is for my case: I posted a mail containing five pacthes (five
> commits).  If one of them contains a problem and needs to be fixed,
> how should that be done?  Adding a patch to the list, making it six
> patches, where the last fixes the problem?  Or should the problematic
> patch (commit) be redone correctly?

It depends on the state of the patch.  If it has been pushed to the repo
already, a followup patch is necessary. But as long as it hasn't been
pushed, just send a v2 of your patch.  `git send-email is pretty helpful
there, having a -v option to add a version number (or "reroll-count" as
it is called officially).  -v 2 results in your subject being called

  [PATCH v2] foo...

and so on.  If only a single patch is affected, it's your call if you
just send a new version of that patch (ideally with a reply-to set to
your original patch), or if you just send the entire series as a v2.
Sending a v2 (or v3, ...) of the full series makes the most sense, if
none of the patches have been applied yet.  Whatever suits you, given
this mailing list hasn't *that* much traffic.


Thanks,
Corinna