On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:15:35AM +0000, Thalia Archibald wrote: > On Apr 7, 2024, at 23:25, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 07:46:52PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: [snip] > >>> I have several more patch sets in the works, that I’ve held back on sending > >>> until this one is finished, in case I’ve been doing something wrong. I want to > >>> move forward. Thank you for your time. > >> > >> If the additional patch sets are unrelated to this patch set, then I > >> don't see a reason to hold them back. Feel free to send them. Even if > >> they are related to this patch set, you may still want to send them. > >> After all, doing so may get the ball rolling again on this patch set. > > > > Agreed. Especially given that this is your first contribution, the > > quality of your patch series is quite high. So I don't see much of a > > reason to hold back the other patch series in case they are unrelated. > > My effort comes from reimplementing fast-import parsing as a Rust library, > following the implementation, not just the documentation, so I’ve noticed many > mismatches between the concrete and abstract grammars. Perhaps it would save > reviewer time to submit those around the same time, so knowledge of fast-import > needs to be evicted and loaded from cache less. In this case I think it depends on whether or not these patch series would conflict with each other. If they do it's preferable to land them sequentially. If they don't conflict then it should be fine to send separate patch series and parallelize the review to a certain degree. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
