On 07/08/2015 10:46 PM, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Saul Wold [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 1:29 PM
To: Ong, Boon Leong
Cc: Mittal, AnujX; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [fido][PATCH v2 2/2] meta-crystalforest: qat makefile
patches
On 07/08/2015 03:35 PM, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
I do think that 2/2 --> 1/2 and 1/2 -> 2/2 in this patch-series to
avoid partially update the patchseries and have build issue.
That would have been one option, but since this was a new recipe and
the patches are required to start with I would prefer to see them as
one patch, future changes could such as improving or modifying a
given patch or part of the recipe should be individual patches as they they are
incremental changes to a given patch.
Got it. If you find issue in the DPDK series, I will re-format the
patch-series to follow the above principles for the first time
submission of new recipe. Thanks for guidance above.
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the dpdk series, I started
looking at it today and began wondering if it would not have been easier to have
them collapsed, but I understand that you cherry-picked and then updated, and
introduced the patches before the final recipes.
I opined that a cherry-picked should be a clean pick with no content change
unless conflict
changes is required. Followed by another commit to fix the fido build issue to
be explicitly.
So, when I saw and understood your intent there, having multiple smaller ones is
OK. I honestly reviewed the finished product since that was easier than trying
to
decipher the individual patches though!
Ya, I understand the difficulty there because collapsing some patches may lost
the
evolution of the dpdk series. I may collapse them in the 2nd series (if
required), just want
to make sure that it is made easier for your review and merge. Sorry but thank
you for your time
and effort!
On separate matter, Anuj just shared with me his zlib-qat patch that
cherry-picked patch from dizzy into fido.
He took the path of "in the same cherry-picked commit, he swapped a patch that
is zlib-qat is not building
on fido, i.e. doing a patch content changes on cherry-picked patch."
I was not really in favor of such process because I like cherry-picked patch to
be as in-tact as possible as the source of it.
This gives assurance that there is additional hidden ingredients added mid-way
that I am not aware of.
So your saying that the cherry-picked version is broken?
What is your preference here? We will try to follow what suits your best.
A) clean cherry-picked then a commit to fix build error
B) a single commit that has both commits in (A).
I think that cherry-picking the patch and then having the minimal change
to make it work should be 1 patch, this can be done with an interactive
rebase and a squash, but ensure that the commit message reflects this
change.
I think having working patches is important.
Sau!
Thanks
--
_______________________________________________
meta-intel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel
