Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Once the > painful move to sequencer.c is completed, we can think about all these > things. Honestly, moving code verbatim between files is very easy. Repeatedly rebasing a patch that carries out such a move would presumably be hard, though. But this pain is unnecessary! Just like I haven't been reviewing the code movement, I'd be perfectly happy to read a "patch" that says "And then we move the functions from the following list to sequencer.c. I'll send a patch doing so once work has settled down in patches earlier in this series." Now you are telling me that in the super-final future my worries are valid, but I should forget about them today, because later in this series there is some code movement. That we need to get this painful part over with. I would be much more comforted if you said that in the future my worries were _not_ valid, that the current design is a good one, and that these patches are not making the program worse; otherwise, wouldn't it be better to skip whichever are the questionable patches and just carry out the code movement, which doesn't depend on them? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html