Re: 0/8 Netfilter patches (group 2)

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2008-04-08 18:14, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Small suggestion for improvement (don't worry, your series
>> is fine :)): the best ordering for all these patches would
>> have been:
>>
>> Set 1: boolean conversions
>> Set 2: length match (shouldn't have dependencies)
>> Set 3: recent match (also shouldn't have dependencies)
>> Set 4: prefix table
>> Set 5: TCPMSS target
>> Set 6: ARP-tables patches
> 
> You would not believe it, but it was set-ordered.
> YMMV what makes up a set, though.
> 
> [...]
> Invent house numbering?
> 
>  [patch 12/xx] xt_length
>  [patch 12a/xx] xt_length userspace
>  [patch 13/xx] xt_foobar (kernel only thing)
>  [patch 14/xx] xt_bazzzz
>  [patch 14a/xx] ..
> 
> don't think git likes that :p

:)

Just sending them seperately makes the barriers explicit,
so that makes most sense IMO.