Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hm, I haven't looked at where the conflicts are yet, but I'll get to it > as I'm reviewing the rest of the feedback. > > And on that note, what do you think of Ævar's suggestion to split off > the 'easy to review' and 'obvious' patches into their own preparatory > series? I wonder if this would make it harder or easier to manage the > conflicts. It depends on how small an interaction the "obvious and easy" part has with topics in flight. In the best case, if there aren't any the preparatory series may even graduate before the other topics that interfere with the main part of this series becomes ready. In a worse case, what the preparatory work to lay more solid foundation wants to do may contradict what some of these topics in flight want to do. Such semantic conflicts need to be resolved before the main part (and these interfering topics) can move forward, and with "split off", the core of the contradicting wish may become easier to see and what needs to be resolved may become clearer. So, I do not think of a way for such a split to make things harder for later. Of course, the "easy to review" and "obvious" part has to be justifiable on its own, i.e. "a larger series wants to build on this foundation and for it to work this part must be done in this way", when the other topics wants to do the part in question differently, becomes a much weaker justification. But if it is truly "obvious", it is unlikely that the benefit of the change becomes harder to justify.
