From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50773) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHMAX-00083k-4E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 16:26:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QHMAW-0006PJ-5h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 May 2011 16:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4DC064D5.7000800@mail.berlios.de> Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 22:25:57 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1304004042-8334-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de> In-Reply-To: <1304004042-8334-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/18] Fix typos in comments (dependancy -> dependency) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org Cc: QEMU Developers Am 28.04.2011 17:20, schrieb Stefan Weil: > Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil > --- > Changelog | 2 +- > Makefile.objs | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > There were no replies to the patch series up to now. Should I have added a remark that all 18 patches are independent, so they are trivial even if the series contains more than 4 patches? Or would it be better to combine all patches in one large patch? I did not do this because review is a little easier with small patches, and it also reduces the risk of merge conflicts. Best regards, Stefan W.