From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97C71F462 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729838AbfFSRsn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:48:43 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:44268 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1727458AbfFSRsn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:48:43 -0400 Received: (qmail 11133 invoked by uid 109); 19 Jun 2019 17:45:28 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:45:28 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 7732 invoked by uid 111); 19 Jun 2019 17:49:32 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:49:32 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:48:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:48:41 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Carlo Arenas Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] a few more redundant system include cleanups Message-ID: <20190619174841.GB27834@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20190618064537.62369-1-carenas@gmail.com> <20190618155326.GA4014@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:12:30AM -0700, Carlo Arenas wrote: > > I did a quick grep for similar cases, and didn't find any that I think > > would be problematic. There were a few cleanups, below. > > would you mind if I add your 2 patches to a series and include that > missing one?, that way I'll also have a chance to write a better commit > message from my original change, including the other feedback I got > as well That's be fine with me. Thanks. > PS. is there a recommendation on how to version a patch that move > into a series that would be preferred? I think you can just say "v2" on the whole thing, include all three patches, and then write a note that the series supersedes what I sent. -Peff