Hi Wolfgang,
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Graeme Russ,
In message 4F019473.8000204@gmail.com you wrote:
The problem is not one of how sparsely the test/fix cycles are spread over time, it is one of spreading the breakage over multiple patches - If you are replacing functionality then add the new functionality, add the hooks to use it and delete the old in a single patch. That way, if you change breaks something, the revert is trivial. If you multi-patch approach breaks something, the revert becomes more difficult.
True. Especially as it's likely that different patches will break different boards, so there will not even be a chance so revert.
The only option would be to have a way to use the legacy code for particular boards (say a CONFIG option) until they are fixed. Not entirely satisfactory. Of course this could happen with either approach, and reverts become impossible when further patches are layered on top.
Well I don't propose to create things which are not bisect-able. I
But you have - You create new functionality in one patch, add a number of patches, then finally use that new functionality in a later patch.
This is what I fear as well.
Well let's see how we go with the incremental approach - hopefully we can get the same result with less pain and risk, and not too much work.
Regards, Simon
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: wd@denx.de Disc space - the final frontier!