>-----Original Message----- >From: Saul Wold [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 11:00 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 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? Ya. It is broken when Anuj pick from dizzy to fido.
> >> 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. > Thanks for the advice. Much appreciated. I will pay attention on this. -- _______________________________________________ meta-intel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-intel
