Okay then :)
Thanks,
Alex
On 2020-10-01 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 10/1/20 1:41 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi Michael,
I did it this way because then you have a clearly ordered list
of the commits, and in which order they go,
so I thought it might be easier for you (creating less conflicts).
Yes, I understand the rationale. But when I get a series of
loosely related patches in a series of 20, and multiple
conversations start about independent topics, I'm finding
it quite some effort to keep track.
And also, I can hold any more recent patches, such as __int128,
for when you finish applying the previous set, so I fix the
conflicts before you ever see them.
Don't you think?
I don't mind fixing for example patch 5,
and then rebasing the rest (and also the patches I didn't send yet),
and resending them as an answer to v1 00/16.
But if you still prefer smaller sets, I'll send you smaller sets.
I do prefer smaller sets. And yes, occasionally things may
go wrong in terms of patch conflicts, but I think that may be
a smaller than the problem I note above.
It's just that these patches are usually very dependent of the
previous ones, and therefore prone to conflicts if you
don't apply them in the same exact order.
Your thoughts?
As you can see, there's no perfect solution here. In such
situations what I try to do (where possible) is order the
patches from least contentious to most contentious.
That way, the patches that are almost certainly going to
be applied are loaded at the front and the chance of having
to rebasing later patches in a series is lower.
Thanks,
Michael
On 2020-10-01 13:32, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 10/1/20 12:15 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi Michael,
Here are a few fixes (including one removing .br),
and then the remaining stdint types.
These very long patch series are a bit overwhelming for me.
I'd have preferred a few smaller patch series. For example,
I think I would have preferred 3 series like this:
1-4
5-12
13-16
One reason is that the multiple parallel reply threads that
sometimes occur can sometimes be rather difficult to track.
(Your patches have started some quite useful conversations!)
For example, I suspect Jonathan's comments may trigger changes
for patches 5-12.
For now, I'm applying 1-4 and 13-16. It looks like some reworking is
going to be needed for the others. When you do resubmit them, please
start a new thread (rather than replying into this thread).
Thanks,
Michael
