From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: SF Markus Elfring Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 10:45:46 +0000 Subject: Re: Using best practices for big software change possibilities Message-Id: List-Id: References: <05101843-91f6-3243-18ea-acac8e8ef6af@users.sourceforge.net> <20170521084734.GB1456@katana> <7bd4b458-6f6e-416b-97a9-b1b3d0840144@users.sourceforge.net> <20170521095654.bzpaa2obfszrajgb@ninjato> <82cfcf3e-0089-0629-f10c-e01346487f6a@users.sourceforge.net> <20170521102750.ljgvdw2btuks3tqf@ninjato> In-Reply-To: <20170521102750.ljgvdw2btuks3tqf@ninjato> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Dan Streetman , Seth Jennings , LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org >> How do you think about to resolve them by additional means besides mail exchange? > > That can work. I am curious to find out which other communication means could really help here. > E.g. meeting at conferences often solved mail communication problems. I find my resources too limited at the moment to attend conferences on site. How are the chances for further clarification by ordinary telephone calls? > For now, I still wonder why you were unsure about grouping the changes > into one patch? I am varying the patch granularity for affected software areas to some degree. But I came also places along where I got an impression for higher uncertainty. > Maybe there is something to be learned? This is also generally possible. Would you like to extend the scope for the change pattern around questionable error messages from a single source file to whole subsystem trees in Linux? Regards, Markus