Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message <4c665cb9.2040...@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote:
>
> If I add those discrete changes to each driver patch (where it
> might actually belong), the incremental changes to some of
> those files would require all those driver patches to be applied
> in the right order to avoid conflicts.
Yes, and? What's the problem with that?
> Therefore I would like to put all new header files and all
> changes to header files in one patch which would need to be
> applied before the driver patches.
>
> That patch would essentially cause no change to existing code.
>
> Anyone find this idea bad?
Yes,m that's a bad idea. Please re-read the "patches" wiki page.
Commits shall be atomic, and complete. Splitting stuff that
belongstogether is a bad idea, and your first patch that adds unused
stuff will be rejected because of that reason: adding unused stuff.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
Perl already has an IDE. It's called Unix.
-- Tom Christiansen in 375bd...@cs.colorado.edu
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
