> On 28 Mar 2018, at 18:46, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:06:19PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >>> If my task is to "move version check to the agent", do I _have_ to change >>> the semantics of the version check? No. >> >> Of course you have to. There is no “PluginVersionIsCompatible” >> anymore, etc, so the version number semantics have changed whether you >> like it or not. You may artificially try to make the new version >> number look like the old one, and I would have if there wasn’t another >> problem with that numbering. > > Yes, "another problem", which is why it's much better if we split them... > https://www.berrange.com/posts/2012/06/27/thoughts-on-improving-openstack-git-commit-practicehistory/ Which I will quote, then: • Mixing two unrelated functional changes. Again the reviewer will find it harder to identify flaws if two unrelated changes are mixed together. If it becomes necessary to later revert a broken commit the two unrelated changes will need to be untangled, with further risk of bug creation. I underline “unrelated”. I have proven that the changes were unrelated, and so did your own attempt at splitting, which require confusing and/or bug-introducing changes to the same piece of code. > > This also makes the review process more complicated, as one has to > figure out what part of the patch is meant to achieve what. In this > case, I'd be fine ACK'ing the first 2 changes, but I haven't given much > thought regarding the versioning yet. Maybe you should give it some thought then, instead of immediately jumping to conclusions and demanding that the patch be split. Thanks Christophe _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel