On 05-05-22, 10:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 04/05/2022 16:52, Hector Martin wrote: > > On 04/05/2022 19.17, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> This should be the last patch instead, or should at least be added > >> after the files are merged first. If someone checks out at this > >> commit, the files won't be available but still linked here. > > > > Isn't that backwards? > > No, because we have tools for checking valid paths (in some places), so > when using that tool, the history is not bisectable. > > > If someone touches the files, we want them to be > > able to get_maintainer.pl, so the MAINTAINERS entries should come first. > > It doesn't really cause any issues if there are entries that point at > > files that don't exist yet, right? > > It hurts any current or future tools checking for valid paths. > > > > > Though this is mostly a moot point because the purpose of splitting this > > out is so we can merge this one patch through the SoC tree, at which > > point the ordering isn't guaranteed (unless the whole series goes > > through SoC). > > Just add each path change to respective commit adding that file. It > should not be a separate commit, at first place. > > Separate commits are for adding entire Maintainers entry. And there is no need for this patch to go via SoC tree, we can handle minor conflicts later on if required. -- viresh
