Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC: ux500: Do not clear state if already idle

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:03:26PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 
> > Besides, I was more referencing the massively increased effort
> > imparted to the developer by applying patches in an arbitrary order.
> > Forcing the developer to rearranging and rebase the patch-set causing
> > unnecessary merge conflicts. It's better if the maintainer takes the
> > patch-set in the order it was written to prevent unnecessary (which is
> > the key word here) such things.
> 
> Meh, rebase takes care of all this stuff for you and you really need to
> be rebasing anyway to take account of changes sent by other people.

> The problem you were having was that you weren't rebasing at all.

Eh? That's just plain wrong.

Anyway, I'm not talking about any particular incident/session/period.

I'm saying, from experience, from the developer side, that if a
reviewer goes though a patch-set taking the ones s/he likes leaving
the rest behind, there are bound to be merge conflicts and semantic
issues which the developer will then have to resolve. Stuff that I
believe is added, unnecessary burden which would be easily avoided if
the set is firstly reviewed and _then_ applied after the Acks have
been awarded.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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/