Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > Yes it was a last minute squash before sending it out, as the fix was only > two lines whereas the conversion is a lot. If it were separated I could have > claimed the introduction to be a rather mechanical patch, but I did not > make use of coccinelle or such, so the likelihood for errors is just as high. > > So I decided to squash them.
I somehow think that logic leads to a suboptimal workflow. If they were separated, somebody else could have done an independent mechanical conversion to verify the result matches yours, which would give us more confidence. When such an independent mechanical conversion does not match, we need one round-trip to ask you if it was a misconversion or a manual tweak. In any case, I think I've looked at it long enough to be reasonably OK with the conversion result myself, so let's move it forward. Of course I welcome independent eyeballing by others. Thanks.
