Elia Pinto <gitter.spiros@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thank you for your reply. I can understand that, clearly. However, > this means that extensive code > refactoring contributions are never welcome. I am not saying this is a > problem, but just an observation. Such changes can happen and have happened when the benefit of such code churn outweighs the cost of reviewing *and* cost of updating or adjusting in-flight topics that may already or may not yet be in my tree. Coccinelle-driven patches that can be mechanically reproduced and whose validity can be trusted can be one way to reduce the review and maintenance cost for such a tree-wide change.
