From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
Cc: akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cryptoloop
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:23:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030703172358.B10499@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <UTC200307022100.h62L06a22118.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl>; from Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl on Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:00:06PM +0200
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:00:06PM +0200, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> No, the point of such a series is that each patch does something
> clearly defined, is an improvement even when the author dies the
> next day so that all further work is lost.
*nod*
> You should never accept a patch that makes things worse and is only
> justified by a future one.
well, I almost agree. If the other patch is posted at the same time
or the regression is for less important code (say a legacy driver)
this can be ok.
> So for everyone except the guy who's writing the code it is best to have
> all the work in place and reviewable at the same time.
>
> No. Some changes are too large for that.
right, there's changes that are too large. But it really helps a lot
to send a series of patches to give a broader view.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-03 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-02 21:00 [PATCH] cryptoloop Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-02 21:06 ` Greg KH
2003-07-02 21:31 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-03 16:23 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-04 13:21 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-04 13:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-04 11:08 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-04 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-03 16:25 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-03 16:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-02 22:57 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-02 22:27 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-02 19:42 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-02 19:58 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-02 18:44 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-02 19:02 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-02 19:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-07-02 19:20 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-02 19:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-07-03 11:21 ` Jari Ruusu
2003-07-03 15:20 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-03 17:29 ` Jari Ruusu
2003-07-03 17:38 ` Chris Friesen
2003-07-04 7:43 ` Jari Ruusu
2003-07-04 8:44 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-04 9:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-05 8:41 ` Jari Ruusu
2003-07-05 8:58 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-05 9:00 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-07-05 9:10 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-07-05 17:16 ` James Morris
2003-07-05 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-07-08 12:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-04 9:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-03 16:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-02 15:21 Andries.Brouwer
2003-07-02 17:16 ` Andrew Morton
2003-07-03 15:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030703172358.B10499@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox