Dear Scott Wood, In message <20110131143141.2959d...@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> you wrote: > > I'm confused. You say "of course not all together", but the first one > you say to include with the second, and the second you say to include > with the third.
I did not say this. > If you're suggesting keeping them mostly separate, but just moving some > bits into the subsequent patch, that makes no sense to me. They > logically belong where they are -- e.g. Come on. Read what I wrote. > Has your aversion to "dead" code grown so strong it can't exist even in > a transitory state between members of a patchset, even when necessary > to avoid mixing users of a facility with the facility itself in the > same patch? I think that would do significant harm to reviewability. Calm down, and re-read what I wrote. For example, why must we add the Makefile changes in the first step, when all the code it references is still missing? Should this not be the last step? And what is the benefit of adding documentation to the README here? To me it makes more sense to add this when CONFIG_HAS_TPL and CONFIG_IN_TPL get used first. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Plans break down. You cannot plan the future. Only presumptuous fools plan. The wise man _steers_. - Terry Pratchett, _Making_Money_ _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
