Daniel Veillard <veillard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> In general I like the approach 'let's put what we consider fine first
> and discuss other parts later' . I guess it's the third round of review
> and I really find easier to comment based on existing stuff than big patches
> that gets iterated over time. So let's isolate what we consider okay
> and not needing further discussion, push them now, than in an upcoming
> fourth iteration,
Yes, monolithic patches are hard to manage, and it's not
effective to re-review from scratch a 10,000-line diff when
the incremental diff is say just 1/10 the size.
For that reason, I've been pulling from Dan's hg patch queue
on an irregular basis, and importing the result into a
git repository, putting each "pulled batch" on a new branch.
Then, I can compare one batch to another with a simple
git diff t7..t8
If only I had pulled a little more frequently over the
last week or two. My final incremental is summarized like this:
$ git diff --shortstat t8..t9-public
74 files changed, 2156 insertions(+), 9861 deletions(-)
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list