Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Thanks for sharing your thought process. That makes sense, I'll do that :)
