Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 May 2007 14:09:40 -0400 | From | "Mike Snitzer" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12 |
| |
On 5/4/07, Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:38 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > This is kind of a lot of patches all at once .. Have you release any of > > > these patch sets prior to this release ? > > > > Like the -v12 suggests, this is the 12th posting of this patch set. > > Some is the same, some has changed. > > I can find one prior release with this subject (-v11) , what was the > subject prior to that release? It's not a hard rule, but usually >15 > patches is too many (check Documentation/SubmittingPatches under > references).. You might want to consider submitting a URL instead.
Previous subjects were like: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7)
A URL doesn't allow for true discussion about a particular patch unless the reviewer takes the initiative to create a new thread to discuss the Nth patch it a patchset; whereby taking on the burden of a structured subject and so on. It would get out of control on a large patchset that actually got a lot of simultaneous feedback... reviewers don't have a forum to talk about each individual change without stepping on each others' toes.
> I think it's a benefit to release less since a developer (like myself) > might know very little about "Swap over Networked storage", but if you > submit 10 patches that developer might still review it, 40 patches they > likely wouldn't review it.
The _suggestions_ in Documentation/SubmittingPatches are nice and all but the quantity of patches shouldn't _really_ matter.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches actually doesn't cover how to post a large change because it first states: "Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file." then: "If you cannot condense your patch set into a smaller set of patches, then only post say 15 or so at a time and wait for review and integration."
These suggestions conflict in the case of a large patchset: the second can't be met if you honor the first (more important suggestion IMHO). Unless you leave something out... and I can't see the value in leaving out the auxiliary consumers of the core changes.
Reviewing 10 patches that are quite large/overloaded is actually harder than 40 broken-out/well-documented patches. But maybe others disagree.
*shrug* - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |