This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 22/348] Fix -Wsahdow warnings
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrey" == Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Andrey> Initially, there were 17 patches, which, upon suggestion from Tom
> Andrey> Tromey, I split so that every patch contain only changes to one
> Andrey> particular function or some other small unit of the source code. I
> Andrey> tend to agree with Tom that my initial decision to make only 17
> Andrey> patches made it rather hard to review each, because every one of them
> Andrey> contained many small but disparate changes.
>
> I didn't really mean for you to split it down this much, but now you've
> done it. ?I don't want to make too much extra work for you.
Et tu, Brute? :) I'll try to condense the patches.
> Andrey> Squashing or splitting commits is not really a problem and I can do
> Andrey> this, but if you want me to do so, than please point out the patches
> Andrey> I should squash together.
>
> It is hard for us to do that without seeing the whole series :)
Well, this problem can be solved quite easily. As soon as I'm done
with ChangeLogs I can create a repo on github and all the changes
would be accessible to anyone.
> Conversely maybe it is hard for you to know which patches are likely to
> be controversial and which are obvious.
>
> I think it is hard to discuss in the abstract. ?One idea would be for
> you to merge reasonably obvious patches together in a file-based way,
> using your best judgment about what "reasonably obvious" means.
>
> Or, we can just carry on.
>
> Andrey> So given the aforementioned amount of work, can't we ignore that the
> Andrey> patch count is over 9000?
>
> Not sure what this refers to.
>
Internet memes, Dragon Ball Z. Sorry about that. Rephrased the
sentence would be: "So given the aforementioned amount of work, can't
we ignore that the patch count is very large?"
Andrey Smirnov