On 03/24/2014 11:08 AM, John Griffith wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:31 AM, John Dennis <jden...@redhat.com
> <mailto:jden...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>     When a change is complex good practice is to break the change into a
>     series of smaller individual patches that show the individual
>     incremental steps needed to get to the final goal. When partitioned into
>     small steps each change is easier to review and hopefully illustrates
>     the progression.
> Definitely agree, however I've noticed people aren't necessarily very
> *good* about breaking these into logical pieces sometimes.  In other
> words it becomes random changes throughout multiple patches; in most
> cases it seems to be after-thoughts or just what the submitter managed
> to work on at the time.
> Personally I'd love to see these be a bit more well thought out and
> organized for my own sake as a reviewer.  While we're at it (I realize
> this isn't the case you're talking about) I also would REALLY like to
> not see 5 individual patches all dependent on each other and all just
> changing one or two lines (I was seeing this quite a bit this cycle, and
> the only thing I can think of is perhaps it's developers getting some
> sort of points for number of commits).

Some related good docs on splitting up changes:


Russell Bryant

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to