On 23/07/2010, at 07:44, José Antonio Santos Cadenas wrote: > Hi, > > El Friday 23 July 2010 12:31:03 Luiz Augusto von Dentz escribió: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >>> The SDP code in libbluetooth is probably the absolute worst place to >>> look for good examples. In this case the second variable in the function >>> is completely unnecessary. Just assign the malloc return directly to the >>> mcap_md_req pointer and get rid of the uint8_t* variable. >>> >>> Btw, I'd like to understand why we should use different acceptance >>> criteria for your patches compared to everything else that gets >>> submitted to BlueZ. The convention (which I'm sure you've noticed if you >>> follow the list) is that when issues are found in submitted patches the >>> submitter is requested to fix the issue in the patch and resubmit a new >>> version of the patch. You're essentially requesting for buggy patches to >>> be accepted as such and only fix the issues through new patches on top >>> of the buggy ones. >> >> I completely agree with this, one of the reason for this convention is >> that we don't want this changes split apart because they probably >> cannot be reverted individually. Another point is the history will be >> completely disorganized if we start to accept those fixes separately, >> it worth mention that this can eventually happen with patches already >> upstream, but then it is normally a regression fix and as such we >> normally mention the original commit which has caused it. I would >> understand if we were in the old days of cvs, but with git it is >> pretty simple to rearrange the changes, just use git rebase -i + git >> reset or whatever other form to get this fixed in place. > > We agree with you two. This is the complete development history that we have > now. We sent it like this because we understood that keeping the history will > be better. We don't care sending a different history with all the bug > corrections amended. > > About the use of git rebase, it is not the first time that we do this and > because of this we know that rebase some commits will make some of the > following commits not compile. It will be a long and hard work to fix this, so > it will be better and easier to create a new "virtual" history that splits the > whole implementation in smaller patches. In this line, it is better to put MCAP files inside health/ as Marcel asked.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
