From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.145.245.198] (helo=mx02.dls.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LfDYq-00063v-7m for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:24:28 +0100 Received: from [209.242.7.188] (helo=[192.168.231.111]) by mx02.dls.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LfDUd-0001EP-OV for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:20:07 -0600 Message-ID: <49AFD180.4010906@dls.net> Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:20:00 -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> <49AFC6A3.9070406@dls.net> In-Reply-To: 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 13:24:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Koen Kooi wrote: > This is done so that patches get many eyes on them without people needed > to use git, and people wanting to test can do one of the following: Yes, fine - but the point being made is that when a single day contains 120+ emails, of which well over 70 are part of the same mega-patch, then this policy actually does the *opposite* of what is intended --- people are simply going to look at the sheer magnitude of that, and exercise their ability to delete the entire inbox. How does _that_ help with the reviewing? Wouldn't it have been better to point to a branch with an email outlining the nature and impact of the changes? Or if we really want to have this in everyone's mailbox, wouldn't it be better to break it up over multiple days? (And yes, I was one who favored the notion of reviewing patches on the mailing list -- and I still do -- but I now feel the pain caused by this policy when it is taken to the extreme, and I admit that my thinking was perhaps naive.) -Mike (mwester)