[RFC] Patchsets in a single mail? [Re: [PATCH 01/55] Add simple subunit runner outputting subunit v1.]

[Michael Adam]

On 2015-02-16 at 07:57 -0500, Ira Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 08:36:28PM +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 19:46:00 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > Again, I guess we should just continue as is. Everybody sends the
> > > patches the way (s)he likes (single/multi mail). People are just
> > > different, and so are their preferences.
> > 
> > In the end I want to make it as easy for reviewers as possible, so if
> > the majority prefer not to have inline patch-sets, then I guess I'll
> > have to consider changing.
> 
> Have we done a full serious review with comments like LKML (without the
> flaming) of a patchset this way?
> 
> I'm open to changing my tooling if the new approach beats the old one. :)

I don't think there are new and old approaches.
People have just sent patches differently from
the beginning. Hence we have done full reviews
for both "complete patchset in 1 mail" and for
"one patch per mail".

My mail was triggered by the personal conviction
that the first variant is way superior, but as
this discussion has shown, each one has strong
personal reasons for justifying the chosen
approach. So we should probably simply continue
like this, i.e. some send complete patchsets in
one mail, and some send them with one mail per patch.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20150216/09f0c4dd/attachment.pgp>