kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk wrote:
On 06/02/2010 16:35, Tom wrote:
kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk wrote:
On 06/02/2010 15:14, Tom wrote:
kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk wrote:
Hi Wolfgang
On 06/02/2010 14:26, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear "kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk",
In message4B6D687F.2060606@fearnside-systems.co.uk you wrote: > The patches are split so that each patch makes only one type of > change, > so there's only one thing that needs to be checked in each patch. > > - patches 1 and 2 only make white-space changes (the change was too > big > so I had to split it into 2 patches) I think this should be merged into a single patch.
OK. It'll be about 140K though so I'llput it on a web site.
IMO So it could be posted to the mailing list, it would be better to split.
Was the whitespace changes done by hand or automatically with something like indent as mentioned http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CodingStyle?
It was done automatically using Lindent but I had to do some manual tidying up because Lindent doesn't always get things right.
Maybe a good way to spit the patch is
- Lindent
- Manual
So reviewer could spend more attention on the much smaller #2. Would this be easy to do?
Thanks for the suggestion but I think it might make it harder to check. The Lindent changes would still be > 100K so it would end up split into 3 patches, and the last patch would be changing code that was already changed in patches 1 and 2.
I'd prefer to leave it split into two patches and submit it inline really. Each of the two patches is independent - they change different files.
Ok. Tom
Kevin
Tom
Kevin
Tom