On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800
Don Mullis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:37 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > We'd prefer one-patch-per-concept, please. This all sounds like about
> > six patches.
>
> Understood.
>
> > We _could_ merge this patch as-is, but it means that when this stuff
> > finally hits mainline it would go in as a nice sequence of logical patches,
> > followed by a random thing which is splattered all over all the preceding
> > patches.
>
> Does this argue for a respin of the original patches, folding in
> content from this one, rather than splitting it into an additional six to
> be appended to the series?
If the fixes are one-patch-per-concept, and if the original patch series is
one-patch-per-concept (it is) then I can usually insert the fixups in the
right place, later fold each into its appropriate base patch and everything
lands in git squeaky-clean.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
