From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1665 invoked by alias); 11 May 2011 16:36:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 1451 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2011 16:36:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:36:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255332BB274; Wed, 11 May 2011 12:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id AiGcTRkO+4zC; Wed, 11 May 2011 12:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F452BB21C; Wed, 11 May 2011 12:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 86EF6145615; Wed, 11 May 2011 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase Message-ID: <20110511163623.GB19356@adacore.com> References: <20110501122912.GA7206@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110511060421.GA9857@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110511060421.GA9857@host1.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2 > Do you think it should be checked in as separate patches (to unchanged > readline-6.2 with each of the patches applied afterwards) or as a single > commit? (just my 2 cents) I'm sensitive to the 'git bisect' argument, and I think that it's easy to recreate the local diff. Also, I think we've always submitted the vast majority of changes we make to readline, so of the changes should no longer be needed at the next update. So a single-commit would be my prefered option. But I don't have a strong opinion. A multi-commit would be fine as well. Or we could cut the cake in the middle, and make 2 commits: one resetting readline with no change, and then one commit with all our local changes. -- Joel