meta On 12/11/15 16:09, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 11/12/15 15:55, Samuel Thibault wrote: >> Thomas Huth, on Fri 11 Dec 2015 15:32:48 +0100, wrote: >>> So maybe it's better to do smaller steps instead: Would it for example >>> make sense to split the whole series into two parts - first a series >>> that does all the preparation and cleanup patches. And then once that >>> has been reviewed and merged, send the second series that adds the real >>> new IPv6 code. >> >> Ok, that's what we already have: patches 1-9 are refactoring and >> support, and 10-18 are ipv6 code. > > Sounds good, ... then I'd suggest to sent the preparation patches > separately next time and get them accepted first.
And then the next reviewer will say, "nice, but it would be even nicer to see what *motivates* these preparatory patches!" :) Disclaimer: I don't have any technical context for this thread; I just noticed Samuel's email / frustration. I know that all too well, first hand, from this list and elsewhere. I don't know how it can be fixed, but I'm positive it is a *systemic* problem with this development model. (I didn't contribute much value with this email, but perhaps Samuel will feel better by seeing some (however unsolicited) confirmation; plus hey it's Friday.) Thanks Laszlo
