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

[Ong, Boon Leong]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw at linux.intel.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 1:29 PM
>To: Ong, Boon Leong
>Cc: Mittal, AnujX; meta-intel at yoctoproject.org
>Subject: Re: [meta-intel] [fido][PATCH v2 2/2] meta-crystalforest: qat makefile
>patches
>
>On 07/08/2015 03:35 PM, Ong, Boon Leong wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Got it. If you find issue in the DPDK series, I will re-format the
>> patch-series to follow the above principles for the first time
>> submission of new recipe. Thanks for guidance above.
>>
>
>I think I understand what you are trying to do with the dpdk series, I started
>looking at it today and began wondering if it would not have been easier to have
>them collapsed, but I understand that you cherry-picked and then updated, and
>introduced the patches before the final recipes.

I opined that a cherry-picked should be a clean pick with no content change unless conflict
changes is required. Followed by another commit to fix the fido build issue to be explicitly.

>So, when I saw and understood your intent there, having multiple smaller ones is
>OK.  I honestly reviewed the finished product since that was easier than trying to
>decipher the individual patches though!
Ya, I understand the difficulty there because collapsing some patches may lost the 
evolution of the dpdk series. I may collapse them in the 2nd series (if required), just want
to make sure that it is made easier for your review and merge. Sorry but thank you for your time
and effort!

On separate matter, Anuj just shared with me his zlib-qat patch that cherry-picked patch from dizzy into fido.
He took the path of "in the same cherry-picked commit, he swapped a patch that is zlib-qat is not building 
on fido, i.e. doing a patch content changes on cherry-picked patch."  
I was not really in favor of such process because I like cherry-picked patch to be as in-tact as possible as the source of it.
This gives assurance that there is additional hidden ingredients added mid-way that I am not aware of. 

What is your preference here? We will try to follow what suits your best.
A) clean cherry-picked then a commit to fix build error 
B) a single commit that has both commits in (A).

Thanks