On 11/07/2011 01:04 PM, Jean Delvare : > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote: >>>>> IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches. >>>>> You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a >>>>> pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone. >>>> >>>> I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite. >>>> Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should >>>> replace the old driver. >>> >>> The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have >>> incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons >>> above. > > The final call is obviously to Ben, not me, as this driver falls under > his jurisdiction. But for what it's worth, I consider the small-steps > rule void when it comes to fixing a plain broken driver by almost fully > rewriting it. The reviewer should really review the resulting code > rather than the patch. If it makes everybody happier, then killing the > old code completely first is certainly an option. I agree with this. -- Nicolas Ferre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
