From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8235 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2011 05:29:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 8227 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2011 05:29:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-gx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.161.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 05:29:42 +0000 Received: by ggnq1 with SMTP id q1so1261805ggn.0 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:29:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.194.229 with SMTP id hz5mr26444422igc.36.1322026181934; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:29:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.186.228 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:29:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201111221027.52484.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <878vn88fw3.fsf@gmail.com> <4ECBA525.1010801@redhat.com> <201111221027.52484.vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 05:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings From: Andrey Smirnov To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 22 November 2011 09:04:07 Andrey Smirnov wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Marek Polacek wro= te: >> > On 11/22/2011 02:33 PM, Andrey Smirnov wrote: >> >>> Is the typo intentional? >> >> >> >> Sorry about that. No it isn't. Please ignore that particular patch I'= ll >> >> send corrected version soon(I'm in the middle of a git rebase >> >> --interactive, so I can't edit that particular commit just yet). >> > >> > That typo is in other patches too. >> >> OK, once again, sorry about that, I'll recheck all the patches related >> to bcache.c, for now please ignore those. > > please condense down your patches if you resend. =A0there's way too many = little > tiny ones that really should be squashed into a single changeset. > Initially, there were 17 patches, which, upon suggestion from Tom Tromey, I split so that every patch contain only changes to one particular function or some other small unit of the source code. I tend to agree with Tom that my initial decision to make only 17 patches made it rather hard to review each, because every one of them contained many small but disparate changes. Squashing or splitting commits is not really a problem and I can do this, but if you want me to do so, than please point out the patches I should squash together. Right now I have 258 patches to which I have yet to write a ChangeLog entry and 100 patches whose ChangeLog I have to change to, as you pointed out, conform to GNU policy. There are also patches that I screwed up with typos and patches that will eventually will have to be rewritten. Squashing all commits based on file level will still leave you with something like 150 patches, but some of them would be quite large and harder to review than they are now. Doing so on API level would require me to go through all the patches and relative source code, figure out to what API every change belong(which I'll probably do wrong because I do not yet have a very good grasp on GDB's internals) and split and squash all commits accordingly. So given the aforementioned amount of work, can't we ignore that the patch count is over 9000? Andrey Smirnov