On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 7:13 PM Caleb White <cdwhite3@xxxxx> wrote: > On Sunday, October 6th, 2024 at 17:48, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I haven't yet pored over the code in-depth, so I don't know if it is > > even possible, but it's typically very much preferred by reviewers if > > you can present a series as smaller, simpler, easier-to-digest patches > > than large monolithic ones. So, it would be ideal if you could figure > > out some good split points (especially since patch [2/4] is already > > uncomfortably large for a reviewer). But sometimes it's just not > > possible to find good splits, so a large patch may be the only choice. > > There's really not any other good split points because it's > an all or nothing kind of thing. All of these changes need to be in place > at the same time or there's some edge cases that are going to fail. > > I suppose I could try to split the *reading* of the absolute/relative paths > separate from the *writing* of the relative paths. However, I'm not > sure if this would be worth the trouble as most places that read from > the files also write to the files. If that's the case, then it probably wouldn't help to split it up in that fashion. Artificial splits like the one you describe are very likely to be more confusing for reviewers than helpful.
