[U-Boot-Users] Changes to U-Boot Development Process

[Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>]

Hi Wolfgang,

On Friday 19 January 2007 11:05, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > I'm with the Freescale guys here. I don't like compressed patches. This
>
> I agree 100% with you  here.  But  we  should  not  try  to  use  the
> exceptions  as standard for setting up the message limits. The number
> of cases, where a good and valid patch exceeds the  40  kB  limit  is
> *very* small. And if somebody submits new code, you will probably not
> only view it in your mailer, you will apply the patch, run MAKEALL to
> see  if  it  comples  cleanly,  etc. - which means that you will most
> probably use your  preferred  text  editor  for  reviewing  the  code
> instead of reading it in your MUA.
>
> In the past, you helped a lot to  review  patches  for  coding  style
> violations.  I  guess  you  did  not do this in your MUA context, but
> using a text editor instead?

It would have been a lot easier _if_ I could have reviewed the patch in my MUA 
context. At least this is my working experience. It is always a hassle for me 
to get the quoted code ("> ") back to the list when the original mail is not 
inlined.

You're right of course, this inline review is "only" helpful for coding style 
violations and apparently wrong or buggy code. But for this it makes the 
review much easier andI can do the review "on the fly", by just reading the 
mail and simply responding.

> Also, there is always the possibility to split a patch.
>
> Ummm... is there a size limit on other mailing lists - say on lkml or
> linuxppc-dev?

I would be very interested how this is handled in other lists too.

> > requires some extra steps to review (at least for me) and normally I am
> > too lazy to do this right away when reading the mails. Even if these
> > boards support patches are not that frequent, there should be no
> > "obstacle" to send them inline.
>
> Well, you have never seen the messages that have been blocked by  the
> mailing  list's  size  limit.  I *did* see (and usually reject) them.
> Believe me, this filter function has always been very useful.

Yes, you're right here. :-)

Best regards,
Stefan