On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 14:09 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On 5/4/07, Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 17:38 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > This is kind of a lot of patches all at once .. Have you release any of > > > > these patch sets prior to this release ? > > > > > > Like the -v12 suggests, this is the 12th posting of this patch set. > > > Some is the same, some has changed. > > > > I can find one prior release with this subject (-v11) , what was the > > subject prior to that release? It's not a hard rule, but usually >15 > > patches is too many (check Documentation/SubmittingPatches under > > references).. You might want to consider submitting a URL instead. > > Previous subjects were like: > [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7) > > A URL doesn't allow for true discussion about a particular patch > unless the reviewer takes the initiative to create a new thread to > discuss the Nth patch it a patchset; whereby taking on the burden of a > structured subject and so on. It would get out of control on a large > patchset that actually got a lot of simultaneous feedback... reviewers > don't have a forum to talk about each individual change without > stepping on each others' toes.
True .. > > I think it's a benefit to release less since a developer (like myself) > > might know very little about "Swap over Networked storage", but if you > > submit 10 patches that developer might still review it, 40 patches they > > likely wouldn't review it. > > The _suggestions_ in Documentation/SubmittingPatches are nice and all > but the quantity of patches shouldn't _really_ matter. I guess I take the documentation more seriously than your do. It's clearly not mandatory, but for my reviewing I appreciate less then 15 sets of "logical changes". Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
