David A. Greene
greened at obbligato.org
Fri Jul 29 11:26:27 PDT 2011
Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 2:16 PM, David A. Greene wrote:
> Disagreed. The point is that I should not see a stream of 20
> decomposed patches from you. When I get to one that is "wrong" or
> needs changes (e.g. patch 6), then all the other patches after it get
> ignored. This is silly.
It is silly. I see no reason to simply ignore the later patches unless
patch 6 needs a substantial rework.
> Instead, what I should see are (for example) and be asked to review
Oops, I think something got botched here. I can't parse the above. :)
> Here's a hypothetical example of what I want:
> Send in or directly commit 5 patches if they are "obvious" cleanups.
> These are patches that just move things around in obvious ways, fix
> formatting, whatever.
> Send in a patch 6 and wait for review of *just it* saying "this does
> something crazy, here is why, here is why it is the best thing to do".
> Someone will review it, and if there are any problems, it goes back to
> you for revision. It eventually goes in when it is good for the tree.
> After that patch is in, another stream of obvious patches are unblocked and go directly in.
> Patch 12 comes around, gets reviewed just like #6... etc.
> I *don't* want to see all 20 patches up front.
Ok, now I'm understanding you better.
> No. The fundamental disagreement/misunderstanding here is that you
> are optimizing for an out-of-tree maintainer pushing "batches" of work
> upstream. This is not what I'm at all interesting in optimizing for,
> and if you're irritated about the turn-around time that it takes to
> get review, then you shouldn't be optimizing for this either.
Thanks, that clarifies things. So you don't so much demand individual
cherry-picks to master as you demand that merges to master be smallish
and incremental. I think that is entirely reasonable.
With my most recent patch, I submitted something I considered logically
connected. I was asked to rework it and break it up. I did that and
submitted the resulting patch stream for review. No one seemed to
complain about that so I wasn't grokking your dislike of that apporoach.
Now I am much more clear about how to use this git thing with LLVM. :)
More information about the llvm-dev