[meta-intel] [fido][PATCH v2 2/2] meta-crystalforest: qat makefile patches

[Saul Wold]

On 07/07/2015 04:39 PM, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: meta-intel-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:meta-intel-
>> bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Saul Wold
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 4:53 AM
>> To: Mittal, AnujX; meta-intel at yoctoproject.org
>> Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [fido][PATCH v2 2/2] meta-crystalforest: qat makefile
>> patches
>>
>>
>> These patches should be part of the actual recipe patch since they are referenced
>> in that recipe.
>>
>> Think one logical unit, such that if we tried to bisect we would not get failures,
>> with 2 patches, this will cause a failure between the 2 patches if bisect lands
>> there.
>>
> Saul,
>
> Speaking of this matter,
> I have seen maintainer from other community prefer smaller commits than one single logical unit.
> So, I asked Anuj & others here to make it smaller so that it is easier to keep track of the changes instead
> one single large commit.
>
I think that it depends a bit on the community.

> It seems that you put more emphasis on single unit commit that helps in term of git bisect.
> Is that your preference?
>
> I do think that 2/2 --> 1/2 and 1/2 -> 2/2 in this patch-series to avoid partially update the patchseries
> and have build issue.
>
That would have been one option, but since this was a new recipe and the 
patches are required to start with I would prefer to see them as one 
patch, future changes could such as improving or modifying a given patch 
or part of the recipe should be individual patches as they they are 
incremental changes to a given patch.

> I would like to hear your commend here so that I don't get "dinged' by you in future ... =-)
>
I don't mean to be harsh, just trying to be consistent.

Sau!



>
>