Re: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:14:10AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation
> To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> > > Hello Greg,
> > >
> > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end
> > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk.
> > >
> > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some
> > > feedback from yourself too.
> > >
> > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to
> > > at the moment, so there is no rush.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience.
> >
> > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then
> > fixed it up at the end, right?
> >
> > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every
> > step of the way.
> >
> > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model
> > works.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> 
> Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel
> development model works.
> 
> Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking?
> 
> (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy
> the kernel development model requirements;
> (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code
> implemented as shell functions;
> 
> While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go
> ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell
> implementation over the awk one.

I think 1 might be good, but do it in 3 patches:
	- add new file scripts/ver_linux.awk
	- delete scripts/ver_linux
	- rename scripts/ver_linux.awk to scripts/ver_linux

the first one people can review, the second no one cares about, and the
third you can generate with the '-M' option to git format-patch so it
shows up as nothing at all.

Yes, for one patch there will not be the script, but I think we can live
with that :)

Sound better?

thanks,

greg k-h