> > >You seem to have missed a key point of splitting a monster patch > > >into a sequence of independent patches ... the independence! > > > > I would assert the key point is being able to see each change in > > isolation clearly. > > I concur.
That's one aspect of independence. Also, "git bisect" and similar fault isolation strategies should not break ... that's important for reviewability (and correctness, maintainability) too. I'm not dissing Monty's work when I say that, BTW ... just pointing out the equivalent of "you'd be ensuring bisection fails here". > > >That is, in any series of patches 1..N it's a goal that later > > >patches be independent of earlier ones ... in the sense that > > >dropping the later ones not break anything, since the series > > >as a whole is _functionally_ incremental. Not only should the > > >system build with just the first N patches, but it should WORK > > >that way too. Which is is the invariant that "git bisect" relies on. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
