From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.145.245.199] (helo=mx03.dls.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LfCpy-0005rA-TC for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:38:19 +0100 Received: from [209.242.7.188] (helo=[192.168.231.111]) by mx03.dls.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LfClm-00065r-Ud for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:33:47 -0600 Message-ID: <49AFC6A3.9070406@dls.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:33:39 -0600 From: "Mike (mwester)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081209 Thunderbird/2.0.0.19 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org References: <1236182004-4523-1-git-send-email-openembedded@haerwu.biz> <1236182004-4523-70-git-send-email-openembedded@haerwu.biz> <49AF4FBD.1010209@dls.net> <20090305044711.GE26343@smtp.west.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20090305044711.GE26343@smtp.west.cox.net> Subject: Re: I got the point - did everyone one else? [was: Re: [PATCH 70/70]...] X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:38:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:06:21PM -0600, Mike (mwester) wrote: > >> 70 patches on the list???? >> >> I presume somebody is making a point with this. Yes, ok, _I_ get it - >> reading the emails on the list using a cell phone and gprs connection >> and tiny screen REALLY REALLY Reallly SUCKS when the mailing list also >> used as a patch review list. > > Actually, the point is the opposite. Spamming the list where everyone > is means bugs get caught and working-but-incorrect things get pointed > out. Yes, in the *NORMAL* case that would be true. Seven patches - fine, that would work. 10x more than that? - that's clearly a case where clear thinking would put the changes on a branch and have it reviewed there. (Which is exactly what recent discussions here have been about, hence my conclusion that this patch-mega-bomb was intended to make a point about that discussion.) 70 patches? Come on, who's going to extract and apply 70 patches from email? Not likely! Mike (mwester)