Re: [PATCH 2/8] revert: decouple sequencer actions from builtin commands

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 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."

More than the pain of rebasing the patch everytime, I guess what I'm
asking is: is it worth stretching my foresight like this?  Once the
code is in sequencer.c, it just becomes so much easier for me to write
scratch code to help me wrap my head around the generalization.  If
the answer to the question is yes, I suppose it makes sense to submit
the good parts now and work on the other parts over an extended period
of time.

-- Ram
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]