From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MInQa-0001Gw-Qa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:35:32 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MInQZ-0001Gk-EI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:35:31 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49612 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MInQZ-0001Gh-8o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:35:31 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:45204) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MInQY-0006qN-OM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:35:31 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so620877fgb.8 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:35:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090622170515.GA29636@miranda.arrow> References: <61E57A9F-6D9A-4DF3-9CE6-0B8056DD1C60@web.de> <4A3E5071.7080407@redhat.com> <20090622170515.GA29636@miranda.arrow> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:35:29 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] cocoa.m issues fixed From: Blue Swirl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stuart Brady Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 6/22/09, Stuart Brady wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 09:07:06PM +0300, Blue Swirl wrote: > > On 6/21/09, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > > It's standard operating procedure. Suppose in addition to the two birds > > > you mention the patch also kills an innocent kitten. Since it's one patch, > > > if a fix is not immediately forthcoming, the maintainer has to revert the > > > patch, bringing both birds back to life. > > > > How nasty for you to forget the poor little kitten, who should be > > entitled to get her life back. > > > Why are the birds being brought back to life, anyway? I thouht they idea > was to kill two birds with one stone? Yes, but since the maintainer reversed the patch, the birds and the kitten were magically resurrected. > Also, what have people got against bird all of a sudden? I'm afraid you must consult with your ancestors, who invited this bird killing talk and other monstrosities. > Consider the lily?! He's having a go at the flowers, now! ;-) ENOPARSE > > > With one patch per bird, the maintainer can revert just the patch which > > > killed the kitten, leaving the other bird dead. > > > > Also here, do you really hate kittens that much? ;-) > > > Or birds, for that matter... > > BTW, other reasons to apply one fix per patch, in no particular order: > > * Makes resolving merge conflicts more straightforward in certain > cases, as it's easier to see why different lines were modified. > (I.e. multiple changes with a long description weakens the tie > between the description and the individual fixes that were applied.) > > * Means that when looking at commits, people can see the changes that > they're interested in, instead of having to manually skip past all > the cosmetic stuff that they're not interested in. > > * Means that the fix can be cherry picked for a distribution easily, > without forcing maintainers to filter out cosmetic changes that > shouldn't be made to stable release. > > * Increases the chance of cleanups being made in all cases, rather than > just the one-or-two that you happened to spot in whatever file or > function you were dealing with at the time. > > * Means that if there's a problem with only one change out of many, > it's likely that you'll only need to resubmit the change that was > incorrect. (This also eliminates/reduces the chance of any sneaky > or even unintended changes being made regarding the other fixes.) > > * Makes changes stand out better in the shortlog. > > * Improves the likelihood that maintainers will consider your patch > to be reviewable, and then actually review it and apply it, if those > maintainers lack the time to review all patches that are submitted. +1 for this one. > I'm sure there are many more reasons. > > For one simple patch, it may not seem like a big deal, but for several > hundred simple patches, it is. Yes, imagine a Beowulf cluster of... Nevermind.