Bryan Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Army wrote: >> Well I'm a day late, but I've finished my review of the patch... > > Hi Army, > > Thank you very much for the careful review and the helpful suggestions. > There were a number of points in your message, many of which I will > address when I re-submit the patch proposal, but there were several > points which are large enough that I'd like to address them specifically > in this message. > > --------------- > > 1) Should this be one patch or several? It is indeed awkward to > bundle all these changes together, and they aren't all interdependent. > For example, DERBY-170 can be easily broken out. Also, the changes to > DDMWriter.finalizeDSSLength() that I propose for DERBY-125 can certainly > be separated from the "offset API" changes that I propose for DERBY-491 and > DERBY-492. I'd like to hear the opinions of others on the list about whether > to break this patch up or not.
If some of the issues are completely independent, I think you should put those in separate patches. This will make it easier for others to understand your changes, as they can concentrate on one issue at a time. If the changes are interdependent or touch the same parts of the code, I think it is better to submit one patch than to instruct the committer/reviewers to apply patch A, B, C and D in one particular order. Separate patches for DERBY-170 and DERBY-125 and one patch for DERBY-491 and DERBY-492 sounds like a good idea. That is, if it's not too much work. -- Knut Anders
