Re: [PATCH v3] kbuild: rust: make `*.long-type-*.txt` a target for cleanup

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 6:23 AM Joel Kamminga <contact@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments and tips. Just for future reference for myself,
> in regards to applying changes strictly to the metadata of the patch
> (i.e. adding a changelog but leaving the actual code unchanged), is it
> preferred to just resend the same version of the patch with the
> changelog added instead of creating a whole new version? That was the
> impression I got reading through some earlier patches, but seeing as
> I've been creating new patch versions and haven't been told to do
> otherwise, I figured I'd double check.

Good question!

If you forgot something small in the patch, especially if it is
something like a typo or a missed changelog or similar, it is usually
simpler to just reply to your patch and mention/quote the place to be
fixed.

That avoids a whole new version for very small changes, while making
everyone aware of the correction. So if a maintainer applies the patch
earlier than the next version is sent, they can fix it on the fly.

Now, of course, sending a new version can make life simpler for
maintainers, because they can just apply the new version without
having to manually handle those bits (which can introduce mistakes on
their own). This applies to things that end up in the commit, so it
doesn't matter for e.g. the changelog.

However, sending too many versions also has overhead for everyone (the
emails on their own, the tracking of each version, possible parallel
discussions in different versions, possible feedback on the previous
version...), which is why it is all a balance, and it is usually
recommended to wait about a week or two before resends.

I hope that helps!

Cheers,
Miguel