From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6680759771290664960 X-Received: by 2002:a2e:292:: with SMTP id y18mr17724553lje.52.1556116697568; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a2e:9c88:: with SMTP id x8ls1834555lji.1.gmail; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy0A6oKmozmtVVYKvasdlO588EwUwXglrCXkfGEGjAEVj32Xn/9LNL7DNhCilJ0lh9a4Ebz X-Received: by 2002:a2e:888a:: with SMTP id k10mr4188654lji.57.1556116697086; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:38:17 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1556116697; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=FfT2+jgm9E4ymchnkXvBEkfnOO5qhMbpihHXd5i4TVC5EjwMkaN6YRZE0FHvXGQHRM p36oRMXiwwd9yPEe/qPWPJmfugIYpBGrjLlpSo0qtJxCfNcULio3S6KHThTm/JYacSIX OYjdla4nrFy4wtbiWVDYoTTFLHtKQQqXeM4uicrn6USUDj6EJycupNWcyYhFfL+8NdMp F3Ic71Rewwc6D7pxvVKPDCkMnbLJ2CoX+o1WHCDuV8jP7bnnWmxey1bkXCVQLPbwl/76 iWmhukBMshredcFPlP5N/XEhpicf/DqSiw6Izszi6xvOHeVml+WWwCzvcCuaM1yimHy8 HAmQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=vxwoLrxrI6iYw4qpP1dQscyVMj/HDGujN1IJtcYiGAM=; b=ILwVCz1dCD5lkVn5FVyeUfZ92i5qBWAIfICcLW3C8F9gZENeyxIHSybEcHw2RYZWGP oIRSY7sn8ihxRdOHnAugFHGXB0S6h1hQmOvr4YZmVmPyawufQ5DYCde1Z9AEApfrspYA XW7V18dWe2KEh64Me3WlbqZo1q5R59q5dIoJ+r5yz4waQCbKSS2ObVydHLy37iq3JgKI lcs166qxkhN99QrJ2jg5FHYMErRT3Ikc8mDRW5IZxorHXV8pL7fm46kcKJt1cQJiBDZb J2uFI6RaI6CzNBYzQ4VPjFA+EhfGt6Sjaf7FujeiINhtNtBLPSfsVKgALoi+mwiZxXEJ cT4g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from shymkent.ilbers.de (shymkent.ilbers.de. [85.214.156.166]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q66si928397lje.2.2019.04.24.07.38.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.156.166; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.m.ilbers.de (dslb-084-061-174-122.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de [84.61.174.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by shymkent.ilbers.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id x3OEcEYj005329 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:38:15 +0200 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:38:09 +0200 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: isar-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] pre-processing pipeline and transient package replacement Message-ID: <20190424143809.GG21981@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> Mail-Followup-To: isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <20190418112545.1201-1-claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com> <1732702c-ab31-eca1-e889-43ee78e67428@ilbers.de> <3899d35f-f79d-b459-caf0-ba04e87d18b6@siemens.com> <6b08e2b3-7b62-a312-e94a-239562191ac2@ilbers.de> <9d18a087-49c8-eaee-019c-83e33e643f1b@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9d18a087-49c8-eaee-019c-83e33e643f1b@siemens.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on shymkent.ilbers.de X-TUID: PlbPNMgNkifN On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:38:08AM +0200, Claudius Heine wrote: > Well there are different kind of patchsets, some patchsets implement > features and some just cleanup/refactor code. The latter ones might contain > a number of small improvements all over the code base. They are related in a > sense that they 'do' the same (refactoring/cleanup), not necessarily with > the same code pieces. But they might work towards cleaning > up/refactoring/preparing the code for a bigger feature or rework that comes > later. > > So what you are saying that you would prefer instead of putting all those > small refactoring changes together in one bigger patchset, that I should > submit all those patches separate from each other? An then state that the > feature/rework patchset depends on all of them? > > I think that will cause more work on every ones end (especially with the > slow CI build), but if that is what needs to be done when contributing to > Isar, I will look into reordering my patchsets accordingly and maybe write > some scripts to automate this pipeline for myself. The current practice resulted from past discussions, in which amending patches without reviewing again or applying series in part had been objected to. I haven't looked at the proposals in detail yet, but in general, if we can improve the process to save overall effort, I'm for it. With kind regards, Baurzhan.