[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXl3S7TT30PFfyB8@google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 08:59:07 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: tjiang@...eaurora.org
Cc: marcel@...tmann.org, johan.hedberg@...il.com, luiz.dentz@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, bgodavar@...eaurora.org,
c-hbandi@...eaurora.org, hemantg@...eaurora.org,
rjliao@...eaurora.org, zijuhu@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Bluetooth: btusb: Add support for variant WCN6855 by
using different nvm
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:12:07PM +0800, tjiang@...eaurora.org wrote:
> Hi Matthias:
> the previous patch is submitted by zijun , as he is not working on this
> project, I take over his job, so can we assume abandon the previous patch,
> using my new patch ? thank you.
> regards.
Your patch is clearly based on zijun's one, it even has the same subject. A
change of authorship shouldn't result in resetting the version number, it's
still the same patch/series. You can always add a 'Co-developed-by:' tag to
indicate that someone else contributed to a patch, or use a 'From:' tag if
you only made minor changes on top of someone else's work.
Not sure how to proceed best with the version number, especially since there
are already 3 versions of the 'new' patch. Either option can create confusion,
I guess you can continue with the new scheme, it seems the patch is almost
ready to land anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists