On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 11:55:50AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Is the plan for such a "refactor" patch to compose such a series as > two patch series: > > [1/2] automatic refactor > > which gives the "semantic patch" in the proposed log message as part > of its description, and the automated result (with possible > misconversions that may have come from bugs in the automated tools), > with a separate > > [2/2] manual fixups > > that corrects what was misconverted and what was missed? > > As long as [2/2] can be kept to the minimum (and an automated tool > that is worth using should make it so), I think that is a good way > forward. Another possibility would be to send the end-result as a > single patch, with description on the manual fixups in the proposed > log message, but it would be a lot more work to generate and review > such a patch, I would think. My hope is that I can make the automated changes such that manual fixups are more along the lines of cleaning up related functions in the module, fixing issues noticed during the refactor, and the like: in other words, things that one might have done incidentally as part of the patch, but could defensibly be done in a second patch anyway. My goal is to make the series as much like a human-edited series as possible, but with less work on all sides. I can send an RFC series that demonstrates this a little later to see if it's an acceptable direction for work. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature