On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:03:26PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > Besides, I was more referencing the massively increased effort > > imparted to the developer by applying patches in an arbitrary order. > > Forcing the developer to rearranging and rebase the patch-set causing > > unnecessary merge conflicts. It's better if the maintainer takes the > > patch-set in the order it was written to prevent unnecessary (which is > > the key word here) such things. > > Meh, rebase takes care of all this stuff for you and you really need to > be rebasing anyway to take account of changes sent by other people.
> The problem you were having was that you weren't rebasing at all. Eh? That's just plain wrong. Anyway, I'm not talking about any particular incident/session/period. I'm saying, from experience, from the developer side, that if a reviewer goes though a patch-set taking the ones s/he likes leaving the rest behind, there are bound to be merge conflicts and semantic issues which the developer will then have to resolve. Stuff that I believe is added, unnecessary burden which would be easily avoided if the set is firstly reviewed and _then_ applied after the Acks have been awarded. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
