On 09/03/2014 07:01 AM, David Marchand wrote: >> Rather than introducing new files with bugs, followed by patches to >> clean it up, why not just introduce the new files correct in the first >> place? I think you are better off squashing in a lot of the cleanup >> patches into patch 1. > > Actually, I mentioned this in a previous email but did not get any comment. > So, I preferred to send the splitted patches to ease review (from my > point of view). It does not ease reviewer time to have a known buggy patch with later cleanups. I'd rather see your best effort at a bug-free patch to begin with, than to spend my time pointing out bugs only to find out you already fixed them later in the series. > > Once code looks fine enough, I intend to keep only three patches : > - one for the initial import of ivshmem-client / server > - one for the documentation update > - one last with the protocol change If that is your plan for the final series, then that is the same plan you should be using for reviews. You want the reviewers to see your proposed final product, not your intermediate state of how you got there. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
