From: Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 14:02:31 -0700 > It has implications _everywhere_. That does not remove the responsibility to break things up into managable pieces, not does it make such a task impossible or even hard to do. You post sets of 10 to 15 at a time, once those are agreed to and to everyone's general liking, you toss them into a GIT tree and you say "here's the next 10 to 15 and they are relative to the changes in GIT tree X which have already been fully reviewed" And so on and so forth. And this is the only logical thing to do, because if someone wants a change in patch 7, it can effect patch 23 so it's pointless to post for review a patch that's going to end up changing anyways. That's a waste of reviewer resources. To be honest, I'm really tired of what tends to be people's knee jerk reaction to this situations, which is a lot of people doing nothing but defending themselves. Even if it did not violate documented policy (it did), it violates common sense. So, can people do something more constructive than trying to defend themselves on this? It's stupid and shouldn't have been done, and we should move on. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
