On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 09:24:45PM +0900, jassi brar wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Mark Brown > >> > One other thing I'd suggest is that when constructing a patch series >> > it'd be better to put the more invasive or controversial changes (like >> > moving the headers) last. This makes it easer to apply bits of the >> > series if there is any controversy. > >> I thought I already made that sure. >> In my opinion, the only controversial patch was 'header-copying' and I couldn't >> move that any further down the series or other changes without that. > > I agree that this is the only really controversial change, but it seemed > like pretty much all the changes that added stuff to the headers or used > them could've been done pre-move so that they didn't depend on it. Not sure which patch you point, but it was decision of logical build-up and successful compilation after each patch that made the patch series as it is now. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
