On Thu, 2017-01-19 at 16:02 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > On 19/01/17 15:13, Ronald Rojas wrote: > > It's possible to add the errors as part of the first patch and then > > add the context functions as the second patch as Go will at least > > let you compile the errors on it's own. I can swap the order of the > > patchs in the next revision. > > Which points out the problem with Dario's suggestion. :-) > > It is indeed normal that you don't fix things from previous patches. > But the "fix" here is from the very first patch: you can't introduce > the > error code before you introduce the directories and the makefile to > build it. > Sure! But, OOC, is it imperative that the makefile is introduced in the first patch?
I think that if it were me doing something like this, I'd defer introducing it, if not at the very end, not before than when there is something meaningful to make. A matter of taste, at least up to a certain extent, I know. > But that of course means that you're not separating out the important > things from the first patch (the Makefile setup) with the important > things from the second patch (the Error handling design). > > I'd prefer it be left as it is; > Sure. I'd at least remove the '//FIXME' from patch 1, especially considering that the changelog already says that error handling will be reworked. > but it's Ian and Wei that have the final > word on that. > Indeed. :-) Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
