My previous misunderstanding was exactly as you mentioned, to group commits on a file to file basis. Now I have understood what a semantic change should be like, with your provided example. You are not asking for much, your corrections help me a lot in my learning journey and I am very grateful for them. Please feel free to point out any more such things in the future.
Shiva On 25 August 2023 4:09:09 pm IST, "Michal Prívozník" <mpriv...@redhat.com> wrote: >Again, way too much changes, disperse in semantics for one patch. You've >introduced virNetworkObjUpdateModificationImpact(). Perfect! But it >should have been one patch. Then you eliminate redundant call to >virNetworkObjSetDefTransient()? Splendid, but again - it's a different >change and has nothing to do with virNetworkObjSetDefTransient(). You >implement new APIs? Sweet, but what do they have to do with the >redundant call? > >Splitting patches per directory is not the same as "one semantic change >per patch". Sometimes it is, e.g. in the series I've posted earlier today: > >https://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2023-August/241416.html > >I know I might be asking too much, but try to put yourself into >reviewers shoes. Libvirt's code base is not exactly the smallest and >reviewing one change (and trying to think of all implications) is hard >enough already. If changes are intertwined into one patch then it's >needlessly harder. > >Michal >
