"Joseph S. Myers" <jos...@codesourcery.com> writes:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, do...@redhat.com wrote:
>
>> From: dnovillo <dnovillo@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
>>
>> Following a discussion we had on this list, this patch renames the
>> file tree-asan.* into asan.*.
>>
>> * asan.c: Rename from tree-asan.c.
>> Update all users.
>> * asan.h: Rename from tree-asan.h
>> Update all users.
>
> Patch series submissions for mainline should be cleanly rebased, with each
> patch as a logical part of the intended eventual changes; they should not
> be a dump of the successive stages by which the patch was developed.
>
> It's reasonable to have an initial patch that adds the skeleton of a
> feature, then subsequent patches that add well-defined additional features
> to it. The following are examples of patch series structures that are not
> appropriate:
>
> * This sort of adding a file under one name in one patch, then renaming in
> a later patch of the series.
>
> * Introducing a known bug in one patch in the series, where a subsequent
> patch in the series is the fix, unless the fix really depends on
> intermediate patches in the series
I agree with this line of reasoning; I tried to squash and split
the patches of the set to comply abide by your request. I'll be
posting a new patch set accordingly.
Sorry for the nuisance.
--
Dodji
