From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 23:45:58 +0100 Message-ID: <200912032345.58339.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <20091125170218.5446.13513.sendpatchset@localhost> <200912032323.39846.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B183C1A.3080609@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f222.google.com ([209.85.219.222]:55310 "EHLO mail-ew0-f222.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbZLCWrI (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:47:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B183C1A.3080609@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Alan Cox , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:30:50 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 12/03/2009 05:23 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:10:51 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Is it good kernel practice to intermingle cosmetic changes with > >> functional ones, in the same code lines? Also, no. > > > > I prefer using common sense over black-and-white rules. > > > > If patch is a _really_ tiny one (< 20 LOC changed) it sometimes makes > > sense to save the time on handling separate patches. > > This is open source -- you have to consider the time saved by reviewers too. Like I said previously this is best done on per-case basis and because it is open source eventually people will come up with an alternative patch if they find the current one too bothersome to review, merge etc. > But I doubt you have saved time on all your motivated commit searches, so... Well, just two basic searches limited to one contributor and one directory.. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz