>> Example: there was a patch a while back (from Dick >> Hollenbeck) that included about 60K of ft2232 and >> TMS sequencing updates ... and gratuitous changes >> to whitespace, and surely other things. I don't >> know of many projects which wouldn't also reject >> such patches with "please split into smaller patches >> so this can be reviewed", as happened. > > This is not what happened. I provided that feedback in order to be able > to provide my own assistance, but I made the point that I was deferring > to others' judgment for the monolithic patch. Unfortunately, this minor > detail seems to have been lost in the shuffle, and it does not matter in > the bigger picture of what happened.
Small patches are good. Even without considering the review of the patches. Look at how, in the very recent past, we've had our skin saved by splitting patches into as many commits as possible. Testers then bisect down to the offending release for a particular problem. Testing comes days, weeks and months after commits in OpenOCD due to the availability of interfaces and testing. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
