Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > > > I spent my full day going through my archives and splitting > > the big patch of Dag into lots of small patches (see attached). I'm > > glad I've got a big hard drive full of junk. > > When I say multiple mails, I mean multiple mails. NOT "26 attachements in > one mail". In fact, not a single attachment at all, please. Send me > patches as a regular text body, with the explanation at the top, and the > patch just appended. > > Why? > > [Nice explanation snipped] How about placing this (slightly edited, and with some other stuff thrown in perhaps?) in a SUBMITTING-PATCHES file in the top of the kernel sources, so nobody can overlook it? -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: I spent my full day going through my archives and splitting the big patch of Dag into lots of small patches (see attached). I'm glad I've got a big hard drive full of junk. When I say multiple mails, I mean multiple mails. NOT "26 attachements in one mail". In fact, not a single attachment at all, please. Send me patches as a regular text body, with the explanation at the top, and the patch just appended. Why? [Nice explanation snipped] How about placing this (slightly edited, and with some other stuff thrown in perhaps?) in a SUBMITTING-PATCHES file in the top of the kernel sources, so nobody can overlook it? -- Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Ok, thanks to the work of Jean, everything seems to be applied now. > > I'll make a test3 one of these days (probably tomorrow), please verify > that everything looks happy. > > Linus Linus, Sorry to bother you again, but a important note... I sent you the whole serie of patches. Then Dag sent it to you again today. The patches were the same *except* for #14. Dag did replace the original #14 patch that you didn't like with a cleaner version (using empty packet to trigger speed changes). I'm sorry for the confusion. But don't worry, we will adjust for whatever you put in test3 and work from there, so please don't do anything ;-) And yes, I'll put it to the usual tests... And thanks again for taking the time to go through the patches so quickly. We do appreciate your great work ;-) Have fun ;-) Jean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
Ok, thanks to the work of Jean, everything seems to be applied now. I'll make a test3 one of these days (probably tomorrow), please verify that everything looks happy. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
Ok, thanks to the work of Jean, everything seems to be applied now. I'll make a test3 one of these days (probably tomorrow), please verify that everything looks happy. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: Ok, thanks to the work of Jean, everything seems to be applied now. I'll make a test3 one of these days (probably tomorrow), please verify that everything looks happy. Linus Linus, Sorry to bother you again, but a important note... I sent you the whole serie of patches. Then Dag sent it to you again today. The patches were the same *except* for #14. Dag did replace the original #14 patch that you didn't like with a cleaner version (using empty packet to trigger speed changes). I'm sorry for the confusion. But don't worry, we will adjust for whatever you put in test3 and work from there, so please don't do anything ;-) And yes, I'll put it to the usual tests... And thanks again for taking the time to go through the patches so quickly. We do appreciate your great work ;-) Have fun ;-) Jean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:56:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > When I say multiple mails, I mean multiple mails. NOT "26 attachements in > one mail". In fact, not a single attachment at all, please. Send me > patches as a regular text body, with the explanation at the top, and the > patch just appended. No problem, they are going to come this way. Your mailbox should be full by tonight. Please remember that they are *incremental*, skipping some of them may work, skipping others may fail. I can't do much about that because this is the way things are developped (patch of a patch). > I can reply to it individually, and that patch (and nothing else) will be > automatically set up for the reply so that I can easily quote whatever > parts I want to point out. Good. I didn't know this featured existed ;-) > You are WRONG. > > 10 emails with 1000-line patches are _much_ easier to handle. I can > clearly see the parts that belong together (nothing is mixed up with other > issues), and I can keep the explanation in mind. I do not have to remind > myself what that particular piece is doing. > > It has other advantages too. With a single 1-line patch, if I don't > like something, I have a hard time just removing THAT part. So I have to > reject the whole f*cking patch, and the person who sent it to me has to > fix up the whole thing (assuming I'd bother answering to it, poitning out > the parts that I don't like from the large patch, which I will not). > > With 10 1000-line emails, I can decide to apply 8 of them outright, apply > one with comments, and discard one that does something particularly > nauseating. And I can much more easily explain to the submitter which one > I hate, without having to edit it down. Yes, you are right, and I realised it looking back to some of the patches. But this needs to be balanced against the cost of context switches, especially for IrDA code. > See? > > Linus I hope you realise that I'm only acting as a facilitator and doing the work of Dag, because I need to get IrDA in proper shape in 2.4 (because I need IrNET), and because most of the patches are mines (see comments). So yes, I did flame, but it was only to get things moving and remove the deadlock, so let's forget about the bad words... Dag will keep being the IrDA maintainer (I hope he will have learned his lesson), and I hope you will finish the whole process with Dag, because next week is a Wireless LAN week for me ;-) And I should also look at BlueTooth PAN if ever I've got time :-( For the patches : I'll send them to you personally, there is no need to abuse further the LKML (they have the attachement version). They will be formated as described above. I hope my little fingers won't do any mistakes ;-) Have fun, and thanks again for taking the time to sort out the issues ;-) Jean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: The IrDA patches !!! (was Re: [RANT] Linux-IrDA status)
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > I spent my full day going through my archives and splitting > the big patch of Dag into lots of small patches (see attached). I'm > glad I've got a big hard drive full of junk. When I say multiple mails, I mean multiple mails. NOT "26 attachements in one mail". In fact, not a single attachment at all, please. Send me patches as a regular text body, with the explanation at the top, and the patch just appended. Why? Attachements may look simple, but they are not. I end up having to open each and every one of them individually, remembering which one I've checked, save them off individually, remembering what the file name was, and then apply them each individually. See the picture? Attachements are evil. In contrast, imagine that you (and everybody else) sends me plain-text patches, with just an explanation on top. What do I do? I see the explanation immediately when I open the mail (ie when I press the "n" key for "next email"). I can save it off with a simple "s../doit", which saves it in _one_ "doit" file appended to all the other pending stuff. Alternatively, I can skip it, or leave it pending, and let the _mail_software_ remember whether I answered that particular patch. I can reply to it individually, and that patch (and nothing else) will be automatically set up for the reply so that I can easily quote whatever parts I want to point out. I can apply all the patches that I have approved with a single patch -p1 < ~/doit without having to go through them individually. None of the above works with attachments. > > Basically, if you send me a big patch with tons of changes, how the hell > > DO you expect me to answer them? Does anybodt really expect me to go > > through ten thousand lines of code that I do not know, and comment on it? > > Obviously not, as anybody with an ounce of sense would see. > > If somebody send you 1000 lines in one go or as 100 times 10 > lines, it doesn't matter, it is still 1000 lines of code to read > through. Even small patches can be totally obscure for somebody not > familiar with the code and what it is supposed to do. You are WRONG. 10 emails with 1000-line patches are _much_ easier to handle. I can clearly see the parts that belong together (nothing is mixed up with other issues), and I can keep the explanation in mind. I do not have to remind myself what that particular piece is doing. It has other advantages too. With a single 1-line patch, if I don't like something, I have a hard time just removing THAT part. So I have to reject the whole f*cking patch, and the person who sent it to me has to fix up the whole thing (assuming I'd bother answering to it, poitning out the parts that I don't like from the large patch, which I will not). With 10 1000-line emails, I can decide to apply 8 of them outright, apply one with comments, and discard one that does something particularly nauseating. And I can much more easily explain to the submitter which one I hate, without having to edit it down. See? Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
