Hi Wolfgang,
On 09/07/11 15:16, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message 1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
From: Macpaul Lin macpaul@andestech.com
Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf
This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin macpaul@andestech.com Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org
v2
- tweak summary
This is an identical repost of 06/28 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129
Your "changelog":
- tweak summary
is a lie, as NOTHING changes (except for the "[PATCH 1/9]" versus "[PATCH v2]" part).
I have explained to you MANY times that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED to resend unchanged patches.
I feel you are intentionally provoking me.
Or am I missing somethign?
The 'Subject' (Summary??) has changed:
Old: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd/spi/macronix.c: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
New (and imho improved): [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: macronix: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
While the actual patch itself is identical, there is a change to what would ultimately end up in git - How should we treat such trivial changes? It seems to me that the maintainers will tweak this kind of detail at their discretion and simply post an 'Applied with updated summary' to the ML - Is this your preferred option?
Regards,
Graeme