Mike Stump writes: > On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to whether I'd > > screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches in a > > different way. > > I don't see a trivial way that is strictly better. The problem is > that some folks don't want the huge patch and some folks don't like > the spray of 60. Hard to please both at once. One strategy that > might be better would be to do them up on a development branch and > submit one patch at a time as you develop them and then when all is > said and done and all reviewed and approved, just merge it in.
That's what I had in mind, yes. Develop a patch, test it, post it to list, commit to branch. Write the next patch, etc. Work in public, not in private. Unless there's some reason to hold a patch back, I can't see any reason not to post and commit a patch as soon as it's written and tested. > I'm used to this style from the Ada folks That style from the Ada folks tends to exclude other developers. Andrew.
