On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Shinya Kuribayashi wrote: > On 11/16/2012 5:07 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Looks good to me, like the extensive patch descriptions. I am going to > > apply it to for-next with patches 2+3 squashed, because after patch 2 we > > would have a buggy state otherwise. Let me know if you are not okay with > > that. > > It's not that buggy as you/we think, in most cases it work without > problem. What's more important for me is to record the issue and > how to solve it. So I'd like to have patch 2 and 3 separately. I agree with Wolfram. For developers it can be important to know their own development process, that's true. But for upstream it is an absolute preference to avoid breakages. So, we should never commit patches, that are known to contain problems. In this case it means, that patches 2 and 3 should be merged. It is good, that the problem has been detected and fixed during development or testing, this gives us a chance to avoid breaking the mainline, which we should certainly use. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
