Re: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivialoptimization, cleanup

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800
Don Mullis <dwm@xxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/