[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287507806.10071.16.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:03:26 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Jeff Ohlstein <johlstei@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the msm tree with the arm tree
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:18 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Joe Perches wrote:
> > This could have been done:
> >
> > $ git show 08a610d9ef5394525b0328da0162d7b58c982cc4 | ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --nogit | wc -l
> > 35
> >
> > Even then, using 35 CCs is generally silly.
> >
> > It might make some sense for a cover letter and a
> > patch series where the series made tree-wide changes
> > in multiple directories.
>
> Probably not even then: When a single mail header gets too long, you usually land
> in some spam filter and get hate mail from the list owners. The lkml limit is 1024
> characters (this may come from an official RFC, don't know), which is usually less
> than 35 recipients.
Patches just shouldn't be this large. You want smaller patches for a lot
of reason. Take the BKL, would it have been acceptable to make all the
BKL changes in a single patch (and what would the CC have looked like)?
If you do anything remotely sophisticated then , from my perspective, a
tree wide patch just isn't going to work.
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists