On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 03:27:28PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Please do not start your patch series from 5/9 when there is no 1/9,
> 2/9, 3/9, and 4/9.  It is seriously confusing.
> 
> I am guessing that you are trying to split the series into
> manageable pieces by going per call graph and codeflow.  I think it
> is a more sensible approach than a single huge ball of wax we saw
> earlier.

The later patches are further changes extending the previous series. The first, 
large
patch can be splitted any more - it has alreay been generated by changing the 
delta code
and fixing other functions until the codebase is working again.

I didn't wanted to spam the mailing list with the same unchanged patches within 
a short timeframe.

Regards,
Martin

Reply via email to