From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3189 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2008 03:46:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 3180 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2008 03:45:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (HELO sunset.davemloft.net) (74.93.104.97) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:45:25 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sunset.davemloft.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22722C8C188; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20080831.204517.81022437.davem@davemloft.net> To: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl Cc: uweigand@de.ibm.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc][00/37] Eliminate builtin_type_ macros From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <200808312218.m7VMIGPq030239@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <20080831175045.128504000@de.ibm.com> <200808312218.m7VMIGPq030239@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 From: Mark Kettenis Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 00:18:16 +0200 (CEST) > I've probably had one piwo too many at this point, but can we please > stop this Linux [x/zillion] crap? You can't seriously pretend there > are really 37 independent diffs that people would want to review > and/or test can you? Why is it crap to split up a large harder to review (and bisect) change into bite size (easier to review and later bisect) independant pieces? And why is it purely labelled as "a Linux thing" to split up a large patch this way? I've seen this submission technique used in many other projects. If a reviewer doesn't have time to review the whole bit, they can choose to look at one a few or even just one of them, when it is split up like this. What if later there is a regression and someone tries to bisect through this change? If we have just one huge one it's harder to figure out which of the 37 parts caused the problem, whereas if we could bisect to one of these 37 pieces, we'd know precisely which part added the regression. That is just smart development as far as I can see. The response I am seeing seems like a negative knee jerk reaction to me. I post sets of 50 patches at a time frequently for some of my work, and it eases the reviewer burdon tremendously.