On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Magnus Damm <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Laurent Pinchart >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> When submitting new drivers I usually try not to make the development >>> history >>> visible to mainline. It brings little additional value (beside possibly >>> making >>> backporting a bit easier, but in the devm_* case that shouldn't be a >>> problem, >>> unless Simon thinks otherwise) but adds review complexity, as reviewers need >>> to validate the intermediate versions as well. More patches also mean more >>> potential bisection breakages. >> >> Huh, it seems that my point of view is the total opposite. I see that >> using incremental patches to show new development would make review >> _easier_. Perhaps that's not the case for most people. > > As subsystem maintainer what I don't want to see is a patch that > at one point breaks something in some configuration and then later > fixes it. Then I strongly prefer squashing. (Greg also mentions this > in one of his seminars.)
Sure, I totally agree. I strongly dislike when people introduce breakage and then fix it later in the same series. It's pretty obvious to me, each incremental step needs to work by itself - if it doesn't then it should be reworked before it gets merged. I personally prefer to separate features from fixes. Fixes are always folded into the original patch. > What really makes me mad is the the above pattern + claim that > it must be done in that way to preserve authorship. Like legaleaze > or credit is more important that functionality. > > If all patches are bisectable and perfectly fine then whether you > take 8 stops when driving to Rome or just drive there in one > big stretch is more a technical, secondary thing. Do whatever you > like as long as all commits build and boot. I suppose I prefer to stop for coffee in every village then. =) / magnus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
