On 11/12/15 15:55, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Thomas Huth, on Fri 11 Dec 2015 15:32:48 +0100, wrote: >> So maybe it's better to do smaller steps instead: Would it for example >> make sense to split the whole series into two parts - first a series >> that does all the preparation and cleanup patches. And then once that >> has been reviewed and merged, send the second series that adds the real >> new IPv6 code. > > Ok, that's what we already have: patches 1-9 are refactoring and > support, and 10-18 are ipv6 code.
Sounds good, ... then I'd suggest to sent the preparation patches separately next time and get them accepted first. Thomas
