Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > My main comment as a reviewer is I think that there are a lot of > > unrelated changes in this patch set ... > > Thanks for reviewing. I share the same feeling, not specifically > about this series, but I find that "doing too many while-at-it > changes" is shared among the topics by the same author, and I often > wish each topic were more focused. The author has a name. I understand why as a reviewer you want a small patch series, but as a patch-writer you want your code to land on master. Perhaps if there was an actual incentive to split a patch series more people would do so, but in my personal experience that has not been the case. If I had to name the reason why some of my patches have landed on master I would say it's *arbitrary*. Maybe you catch reviewers on a good mood, or the maintainer in-between release candidates. But regardless of the actual reason, patch-series' size doesn't seem to be a huge factor. As exhibit I can five two patch-series of mine: 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201223144845.143039-1-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx/ 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210426161458.49860-1-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx/ The first one is 4 patches. The second one is 43. The second one receved feedback from the maintainer. The first one was complerely ignored. Neither were acceped. This is not intended to point fingers at anyone, merely to state the a mathematical fact. Splitting a patch series is usually more work. If there's no real incentive for a submitter to do so, why would she/he? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
