Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: >> Thanks. [2][3] are something we have to have before we can tag 2.48 >> to have a healthy build with the usual Makefile; so is a working >> Asciidoctor based documentation generation, so building your doc >> toolchain fixes on top of the fixes for 'GIT-VERSION-GEN' does not >> give us any practical problem. >> >> Thanks for a fix. Will queue. > > Thanks indeed, the changes look good to me. > > I guess my key learning is to do largish patch series like the build > refactorings in smaller increments next time. I considered doing it > several times while implementing the series, but shied away from it. I > guess it would have been easier for everyone involved and would have led > to fewer issues though if I did split it up. FWIW, from the project maintainer's point of view, the trickling rate of all of your series was not overly too fast. As long as the reactions to problems discovered can keep up with the same rate, I do not share the "smaller increments as we did too much too fast" sentiment myself. If you are referring to the fact that you have to scramble and fix the reported breakages on multiple fronts quickly near the end of year holiday season to keep the release candidate healthy, and regretting that we went a little too fast, then yeah, I can understand it and we may want to pace ourselves the next time to lessen the stress on all of us a bit ;-) > So thanks to all the people that are helping out in this context! Yes, big thanks to everybody.
