From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 08:39:41 +0000 Subject: Re: Adjustments for a lot of function implementations Message-Id: <26a090fe-fb39-8f68-aa4e-ce4f9f6b0781@users.sourceforge.net> List-Id: References: <356f75b2-d303-7f10-b76c-95e2f686bd3c@xs4all.nl> <14619198-bebe-d215-5324-a14fbc2103fb@users.sourceforge.net> <049aa1b4-6291-ec24-1ffb-77ae8d1cdb63@users.sourceforge.net> <804550a6-1096-12f1-a0ec-1ccd6bcc191e@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Hans Verkuil , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org Cc: Julia Lawall , Jan Kara , Lorenzo Stoakes , Michal Hocko , Muralidharan Karicheri , LKML >> Do any contributors get into the mood to take another look at software updates >> from my selection of change possibilities in a more constructive way? >> >> Do you need any additional development resources? > > One last time: either post per-driver patches with all the cleanups for a driver > in a single patch, I find such a change combination unsafe. > or a per-directory patch (drivers/media/pci, usb, etc) doing the same cleanup > for all drivers in that directory. Would you dare to apply any (of my) scripts for the semantic patch language directly on the whole directory for multi-media software? > I prefer the first approach, but it's up to you. Can you handle bigger patches really better than similar patch series? > We don't have the time to wade through dozens of one-liner cleanup patches. Are there any further possibilities to consider around consequences from a general change resistance? Will any development (or management) tools like “quilt fold” make the regrouping of possible update steps more convenient and safer? Regards, Markus