From: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <200012141004.LAA16109@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: Locking fcntl changes #2
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:04:23 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001214113012.25353A-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 14, 2000 11:30:44 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Eli said:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote:
> > I think I will do as I said above, and perhaps make three files out
> > of it:
> > 
> > /src/libc code changes
> > /src/libc/ doc changes
> > All other /src changes
> 
> No, please keep the related changes together, even if they are in .txh
> files or in wc204.txi, or in the include directory.  Separate the
> diffs by the feature, not by directories or file extensions.

Yes, this is what I mean with semantically different. Sorry if I
caused any confuciusion.

> > That first one will still not be small, and it will require the 
> > /include changes to build correctly.
> 
> Making the diffs small is not the main reason for splitting.  The main
> reason is that we want to be able to review each feature separately,
> and be able to apply it separately, or even decide not to apply some
> of them, if we have a good reason.

Exactly! Though small patches will probably be scrutinised more
(sadly), I much prefer a big one consisting of one feature. It's much
easier to apply, for one thing.


Right,

						MartinS