Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <4f019473.8000...@gmail.com> you wrote: >> >> The problem is not one of how sparsely the test/fix cycles are spread over >> time, it is one of spreading the breakage over multiple patches - If you >> are replacing functionality then add the new functionality, add the hooks >> to use it and delete the old in a single patch. That way, if you change >> breaks something, the revert is trivial. If you multi-patch approach breaks >> something, the revert becomes more difficult. > > True. Especially as it's likely that different patches will break > different boards, so there will not even be a chance so revert.
The only option would be to have a way to use the legacy code for particular boards (say a CONFIG option) until they are fixed. Not entirely satisfactory. Of course this could happen with either approach, and reverts become impossible when further patches are layered on top. > >> > Well I don't propose to create things which are not bisect-able. I >> >> But you have - You create new functionality in one patch, add a number of >> patches, then finally use that new functionality in a later patch. > > This is what I fear as well. Well let's see how we go with the incremental approach - hopefully we can get the same result with less pain and risk, and not too much work. Regards, Simon > > 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 > Disc space - the final frontier! _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot