Michael Reed wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Moore, Eric wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:32 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
Youve rejected the error recovery patchs, which is fair enough.
Just the separation ... the actual patch looks OK.
I'll will continue working to separate the "error recovery
improvements:" into smaller feature add, but will take some time. I
want some constructive feedback, and too big of patch is deterring some
people from looking at it.
I think it's fair to break it up, as long as its clearly noted that the
patch is for review only.
Any chance the changes, properly documented, could be accepted as
one big patch? Breaking this code into smaller patches, when it's
really intended as a driver update, could prove problematic.
I'll let James provide an authoritative answer, but in general, that's a
bad way to do Linux engineering. The worst case would be appearing
every month or two, posted a single, huge "driver update" patch. That
set of changes is bi-sectable, but it does not fully collect the changes
within the driver update.
Some consolidation of changes is just plain natural, so you strike a
balance. Nothing but big driver-update patches? Bad. Four bazillion
individual patches, each for a single whitespace change, cleanup, etc.?
Also unwise. The true balance is somewhere in the middle.
The more important or intrusive the change, within the overall driver
update, the more important it is to separate out that logical change.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
