> On 29 Mar 2018, at 09:14, Christophe de Dinechin <cdupontd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> 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. *not* unrelated, obviously… > >> >> 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