On May 26 2017 16:10, Takashi Iwai wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2017 08:54:27 +0200,
Takashi Sakamoto wrote:
On May 26 2017 15:47, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Queued now, but will be likely declined later due to the rewrites of
the code.
Due to your recent work under reviewing?
Yes, the code might be changed heavily.
Don't touch a too hot spot if it were only a cleanup.
I've already reviewed it but postpone my reply to this evening. (I'm
in paid work now.)
Your patchset looks a middle of work. It includes the lack of changes
for each drivers, thus not bisect-able.
Yes, it was mentioned so in the cover letter.
I think you will re-post the
full series of patches several days after reviewed. Then you have
chance to rebase it to recent HEAD of your tree, don't you?
My patches are already ready. I didn't post the full set just because
it's too much. The patch "snippet" was shown as a demonstration.
Yes, like I did in my previous patchset.
And, why do you think there is only one patchset?
Usually I write several different implementations and choose the best one
for submission. That is, I already have a few other patchsets in my local
tree based on the current code base. And even further works on PCM
code are pending.
I can easily imagine how you progress the work, because I have some
topic branch in my local repository as well, for PCM core. They're also
ready, like yours. However, I accept changes of HEAD of remote branch.
HEAD tends to move regardless of my work. When posting my patchset, I
always work to rebase to the HEAD. This often brings me a bit work, and
next week I'll surely do it, but it's natural to me.
Here, I don't necessarily request you to merge them promptly. I'm just
interested in your current situation, in short, the reason to postpone
this patch. In my eyes, this patch surely brings conflict to your future
patchset, but it has a small changes and the occurred conflict can be
fixed quickly. I understand that you'd like to save the time for it.
So which is easier to rebase and handle? Which one has more
significant changes? A single trivial cleanup patch, or the whole
several sets of patchsets? The answer is clear to my eyes.
Hm.
It depends on the shape of patchset, regardless of the importance, in my
humble opinion.
When it includes large changes, it takes longer time to review. When a
patchset is splitted into small parts and posted sequentially with each
of topics, reviewer finishes his or her work within shorter time
relatively. I'll post my comments to your recent work later, but here
your patchset looks to include refactoring, integration and more. It
seems takes more time to merge into HEAD and I cannot post the series of
my works (they depends each other) even if my patches are enough small.
That's my concern here.
Regards
Takashi Sakamoto
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
