Re: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:14:10AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation
>> To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> > > Hello Greg,
>> > >
>> > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end
>> > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk.
>> > >
>> > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some
>> > > feedback from yourself too.
>> > >
>> > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to
>> > > at the moment, so there is no rush.
>> > >
>> > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience.
>> >
>> > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then
>> > fixed it up at the end, right?
>> >
>> > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every
>> > step of the way.
>> >
>> > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model
>> > works.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> >
>> > greg k-h
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel
>> development model works.
>>
>> Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking?
>>
>> (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy
>> the kernel development model requirements;
>> (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code
>> implemented as shell functions;
>>
>> While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go
>> ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell
>> implementation over the awk one.
>
> I think 1 might be good, but do it in 3 patches:
>         - add new file scripts/ver_linux.awk
>         - delete scripts/ver_linux
>         - rename scripts/ver_linux.awk to scripts/ver_linux
>
> the first one people can review, the second no one cares about, and the
> third you can generate with the '-M' option to git format-patch so it
> shows up as nothing at all.
>
> Yes, for one patch there will not be the script, but I think we can live
> with that :)
>
> Sound better?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Heaps better. Thanks.