Re: [PATCHv1 000/211] unicore32 architecture support

[Tejun Heo]

On 12/09/2010 02:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> * Patches should be split according to logical steps of changes, not
>>   per-file.
>>
>> * Patches should be bisectable.  IOW, after applying upto any patch in
>>   the series, the tree should be buildable and working.
> 
> That does not work for a new architecture. There is nothing to bisect.

Sure, but at least it shouldn't introduce build scripts first which
wouldn't work at all.

>> * When posting a patch series, especially one as large as 211, please
>>   make the mails for the actual patches replies to the head message.
>>   Don't post it as 212 separate messages or replies to the immediate
>>   previous patch.
>>
>> So, in short, if you're adding a whole new arch, just post it as a
>> single patch or a series of several patches if it requires changes
>> outside of the specific arch subtree.
> 
> Crap. a single patch is a major PITA for review. It's even worse than
> 211 per file patches.

Cut the crap.  A single patch may not be perfect for reviewing but
archs are often merged as a single giant patch as bisection is
meaningless anyway.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/