[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support
    On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:

    > On 12/09/2010 02:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > >> * Patches should be split according to logical steps of changes, not
    > >> per-file.
    > >>
    > >> * Patches should be bisectable. IOW, after applying upto any patch in
    > >> the series, the tree should be buildable and working.
    > >
    > > That does not work for a new architecture. There is nothing to bisect.
    > Sure, but at least it shouldn't introduce build scripts first which
    > wouldn't work at all.
    > >> * When posting a patch series, especially one as large as 211, please
    > >> make the mails for the actual patches replies to the head message.
    > >> Don't post it as 212 separate messages or replies to the immediate
    > >> previous patch.
    > >>
    > >> So, in short, if you're adding a whole new arch, just post it as a
    > >> single patch or a series of several patches if it requires changes
    > >> outside of the specific arch subtree.
    > >
    > > Crap. a single patch is a major PITA for review. It's even worse than
    > > 211 per file patches.
    > Cut the crap. A single patch may not be perfect for reviewing but
    > archs are often merged as a single giant patch as bisection is
    > meaningless anyway.

    It's not a question of merging. It's a question of reviewing and I've
    done quite a bunch of reviews on new archs, so I know what I'm talking
    about. Reviewing a single patch with everything and the world included
    is just not workable.



     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-09 15:23    [W:0.028 / U:1.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site