[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26a090fe-fb39-8f68-aa4e-ce4f9f6b0781@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:39:41 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Muralidharan Karicheri <mkaricheri@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Adjustments for a lot of function implementations
>> Do any contributors get into the mood to take another look at software updates
>> from my selection of change possibilities in a more constructive way?
>>
>> Do you need any additional development resources?
>
> One last time: either post per-driver patches with all the cleanups for a driver
> in a single patch,
I find such a change combination unsafe.
> or a per-directory patch (drivers/media/pci, usb, etc) doing the same cleanup
> for all drivers in that directory.
Would you dare to apply any (of my) scripts for the semantic patch language
directly on the whole directory for multi-media software?
> I prefer the first approach, but it's up to you.
Can you handle bigger patches really better than similar patch series?
> We don't have the time to wade through dozens of one-liner cleanup patches.
Are there any further possibilities to consider around consequences
from a general change resistance?
Will any development (or management) tools like “quilt fold” make the regrouping
of possible update steps more convenient and safer?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists