kevin.morf...@fearnside-systems.co.uk wrote: > > > On 06/02/2010 16:35, Tom wrote: >> kevin.morf...@fearnside-systems.co.uk wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 06/02/2010 15:14, Tom wrote: >>>> kevin.morf...@fearnside-systems.co.uk wrote: >>>>> Hi Wolfgang >>>>> >>>>> On 06/02/2010 14:26, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>>>> Dear "kevin.morf...@fearnside-systems.co.uk", >>>>>> >>>>>> In message<4b6d687f.2060...@fearnside-systems.co.uk> you wrote: >>>>>>> The patches are split so that each patch makes only one type of >>>>>>> change, >>>>>>> so there's only one thing that needs to be checked in each patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - patches 1 and 2 only make white-space changes (the change was too >>>>>>> big >>>>>>> so I had to split it into 2 patches) >>>>>> I think this should be merged into a single patch. >>>>> >>>>> OK. It'll be about 140K though so I'llput it on a web site. >>>>> >>>> IMO So it could be posted to the mailing list, it would be better to >>>> split. >>>> >>>> Was the whitespace changes done by hand or automatically with something >>>> like indent as mentioned http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CodingStyle? >>> >>> It was done automatically using Lindent but I had to do some manual >>> tidying up because Lindent doesn't always get things right. >> >> Maybe a good way to spit the patch is >> 1. Lindent >> 2. Manual >> So reviewer could spend more attention on the much smaller #2. >> Would this be easy to do? > > Thanks for the suggestion but I think it might make it harder to check. > The Lindent changes would still be > 100K so it would end up split into > 3 patches, and the last patch would be changing code that was already > changed in patches 1 and 2. > > I'd prefer to leave it split into two patches and submit it inline > really. Each of the two patches is independent - they change different > files.
Ok. Tom > > Kevin >> Tom >>> >>> Kevin >>> >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
