From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6680759771290664960 X-Received: by 2002:adf:df92:: with SMTP id z18mr21371435wrl.239.1556095090605; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:adf:ec8d:: with SMTP id z13ls4077076wrn.3.gmail; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwJXRRa6a75AZ5ItHJJankI+Umc0PxjDoOJFcyXPd9Slwcxm2VTB/aSTYkGudn64vCq+AIS X-Received: by 2002:adf:d84f:: with SMTP id k15mr3102649wrl.301.1556095090194; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1556095090; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HobaD6cWVODLbd/8dFbn1lv/ueAIM504PQPZ9BN5k0e0TVTeXf5Vs6O/JwDVRRsv/K lRoMZpmlGdq+1eYe2o5PVHdQdrVHE7fbhQ2pBIL4OiZ2YahA9MP3P+LxENhQ1UHefLkJ XnJS67b5lqfHWf8UJWu2BDzcd3cL1gzuYYndO/YDAsZy5g633gjLe6sMZvAW8qZQYNZ+ fb/1BskI/DqTZyZ4XAi5heXBWtl+ENmbJTKWC1SERxo+RxircjnoNZcoE9KWIpjmFxTT DmU638gj96Jtef8Gz/wo1I0N+JwyqKxGcy5B+KX5a80u8hl+3UxECTEbVz06gttobiOl +3xg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=1ZgYlhWNqWY8JuQOi1dnD1FTQ9RHg1WVN6+GJAdTc7k=; b=YJ+PqQaEAcsMMWtaPCC6G34ppPhu/9bxjIX+8TiBZ3x045aW9wi3KSoZ7iA8xTa85v 5Q4FuzP7aLCm4CsTbfK4fasdW1qO7q86vd9V8ILuBCNzsVH4i6h6kJYcX+jtdhZ1X7xP FWauh4T23NsusNJZliEIiTu80Zfi3DEmDgQnKSwGA0A6XLCG/zA2EnidHMEK1oqs2DZu 80DVor9iBpmpGUsu4H6m1ccry6l33SEFcL/T2Ev2/jCxubcmvIxXINirU98dzziBy3HG gTPILYIGzSOppo0MxfMsENSCPVT/bIHCS6lxuroCfd53JliBpYbcrlfwA3dG0se8IMb0 Xb3w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com designates 194.138.37.40 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com Return-Path: Received: from gecko.sbs.de (gecko.sbs.de. [194.138.37.40]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t17si1040188wri.5.2019.04.24.01.38.10 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 01:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com designates 194.138.37.40 as permitted sender) client-ip=194.138.37.40; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com designates 194.138.37.40 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=claudius.heine.ext@siemens.com Received: from mail2.sbs.de (mail2.sbs.de [192.129.41.66]) by gecko.sbs.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3O8c9r6015129 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 10:38:09 +0200 Received: from [139.25.69.232] (linux-ses-ext02.ppmd.siemens.net [139.25.69.232]) by mail2.sbs.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x3O8c8mD000810; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 10:38:08 +0200 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] pre-processing pipeline and transient package replacement To: "Maxim Yu. Osipov" , isar-users@googlegroups.com Cc: Claudius Heine 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> From: Claudius Heine Message-ID: <9d18a087-49c8-eaee-019c-83e33e643f1b@siemens.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 10:38:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6b08e2b3-7b62-a312-e94a-239562191ac2@ilbers.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUID: fKss+iLQ+HhF On 24/04/2019 10.18, Maxim Yu. Osipov wrote: > On 4/24/19 9:11 AM, Claudius Heine wrote: >> Hi Maxim, >> >> On 22/04/2019 16.09, Maxim Yu. Osipov wrote: >>> The patch set doesn't apply against current 'next' (it would be more >>> convenient to mention that this patchset depends on your previous >>> series [PATCH v2 0/8] Cleanup rootfs creation). >> >> I did in v1 of that patchset: >> >>  > this patchset contains some patches that where developed while >>  > implementing the preprocessing image pipeline. They are universally >>  > useful, but do prepare for the next steps. >> >> But you are correct that I did not repeat myself in this one. >> >> Maybe we should start looking into how to improve this process wise. >> >> Would it help to post a git url for each patchset? >> >> Maybe it might be possible to merge bigger patchset partially, so each >> commit that looks good, instead of rejecting always whole patchsets? > >> >> The reason why I split patchsets up is that I hope that those will be >> merged faster and thus lowering the work to constantly rebase >> everything on the current next. So for example if patch 5 of 8 makes a >> problem, just merge 1-4 and let the dev resent the fixed patchset >> containing just patch 5 to 8. If that would be done then I would have >> no need to try split patchsets up myself. > > I agree that sometimes rejecting the whole patch set is not wise - but > it's up to patch series author to decide how to split patch sets. > > Our policy states: > > https://github.com/ilbers/isar/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md: > > > 3. Every patch should implement only one logical modification. The > patch granularity is up to the developer. In general, smaller patches > with clear description are easier to review and accept. > > > > 4. Please provide patches that logically belong together in a series. > And vice-versa, please do not submit unrelated patches as series. > > > > Every series should have a cover letter with brief information about: > > > > What this series does. > > > > How it was tested. > > > > Diffstat (git format-patch --cover-letter does this for you). > > > > Definitely, I'll test the whole series and I'll delegate responsibility > of fixing problems (if found during testing) in patch set to the author. 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. Claudius -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-54 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: ch@denx.de