[libcamera-devel] [PATCH] Fix incorrect method in cameradata docs

[Kieran Bingham]

Hi Chris,

On 25/06/2020 09:33, Chris Chinchilla wrote:
> Yes, I resent it as people told me it was missing tags :)
> 
> So it’s missing more tags now? I admit, I didn’t see the reviewed by
> tags appear anywhere.
> 
> So to clarify, to get this right, I need to resend again with a v3 and
> add reviewed by tags?

No need to resend, I can add the tags when applying.

The Reviewed-by: tags were given to you via e-mail in reply to your
previous post.

When posting a revised version of a patch, usually the patch author
would collect previously given tags, because tags mean integration.

Also when posting a second version of a patch, you can mark it with an
increased version number, so this would be:

 [PATCH v2] Fix incorrect method in cameradata docs

When you save the patch with git, you can specify the version to do that
automatically, just add a '-v2' (or '-'v3'...) to the command

  git format-patch -1 -v2

The file names of the patches generated will be prefixed with the
version number.


But, this patch has already got two Reviewed-by: tags, and the commit
message has been fixed up according to the previous comments.

So I'll add the Reviewed-by: (RB) tags and integrate (unless someone
already has...)

--
Thanks

Kieran




> 
> Chris
> On 23 Jun 2020, 19:38 +0200, Umang Jain <email at uajain.com>, wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> Did you re-send this patch by mistake? It's identical with the patch
>> you sent on 6/15/2020.
>>
>> When you re-send the patch, you need to also mention that the patch is
>> the second (or third, fourth ...) iteration of the initial patch.
>> You can do that by adding "-v2" to "git format-patch ..." commandline
>> to denote that it's the second version of that patch.
>>
>> Also, since you got Reviewed-by tags by me and Laurent, you need to
>> collect
>> them too and add it to your commit message while re-sending them for the
>> second round of review.
>>
>> On 6/23/20 4:27 PM, chris at gregariousmammal.com wrote:
>>> From: Chris Chinchilla <chris at gregariousmammal.com>
>>>
>>> Fix incorrect method in cameradata docs
>>>
>>> Fixes: b581b9576abd ("libcamera: pipeline_handler: Make
>>> pipeline-specific data mandatory")
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Chinchilla <chris at gregariousmammal.com>
>>> ---
>>> src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> b/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> index 14dfba0..15cdc17 100644
>>> --- a/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> +++ b/src/libcamera/pipeline_handler.cpp
>>> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ LOG_DEFINE_CATEGORY(Pipeline)
>>> *
>>> * Pipeline handlers are expected to extend this base class with platform
>>> * specific implementation, associate instances of the derived classes
>>> - * using the setCameraData() method, and access them at a later time
>>> + * using the registerCamera() method, and access them at a later time
>>> * with cameraData().
>>> */
>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libcamera-devel mailing list
> libcamera-devel at lists.libcamera.org
> https://lists.libcamera.org/listinfo/libcamera-devel
> 

-- 
Regards
--
Kieran