Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 3 February 2014 08:40, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: >>> On 31 January 2014 15:53, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> 186 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 415 deletions(-) >>> >>> No objection in principle, but I think this is going to be >>> hideous merge pain since it touches a huge range of files. >>> Could you split it up into separate patches that could >>> reasonably go in via the appropriate submaintainer trees? >> >> No merge pain at all if you simply rerun the included Coccinelle patch! > > Yes, but that requires me to find, install, learn about and use > Coccinelle. > >> Splitting the patch may shift some pain from the choke point (you) to >> submaintainers and me. I don't mind the splitting pain. I do mind the >> "chase the nominal maintainer of obscure corner" pain. >> >> If you really want it split: what about splitting off just the busy >> and/or well-maintained subsystems? > > Yes, that's fine. You can put the "miscellaneous leftovers" parts > through trivial if you like. I just dislike single touches-entire-world > patches if they're not absolutely necessary.
I started splitting the patch, and it bores me to tears. Peter, any chance for applying as is, with all conflicting hunks summarily dropped?
