>>>>> "DJD" == Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DJD> 2) Consider splitting patches that do N things to fix an
DJD> issue into N
DJD> independent patches if possible, or some number > 1. Some of
DJD> the changes in the patch are good by themselves, they don't
DJD> have to be linked with other changes that have modularity
DJD> concerns. E.g. replacing use of a synchronized collection
DJD> with an unsynchronized one. Incremental development is a
DJD> great model.
I don't mind splitting the patch into smaller pieces if that makes it
easier to review it. Having said that, I don't really understand how
the patch can be split in such a way that each sub-patch becomes
meaningful by itself. All the ways of splitting the patch that I can
think of seems to leave each part with "baggage" that only makes sense
if viewed together with the other parts. But again, if it aids the
reviewers...
--
dt
