Re: PATCH: remove runtest_start procedure

Ben Elliston <[email protected]> Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:18:33 +1100

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.sysutils.dejagnu.general
Message-ID	<20181215081833.GA7984@bapbop>

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 01:42:22AM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:

> Is it better to write new code close to the existing style and then
> patch both for cleanup or to write new code in "new" style and patch
> only the old code in cleanup?

I tend to use the latter.

> I suppose the real question is: what are the trade-offs to minimize
> the overall effort required for review?  Is there significant
> per-patch overhead (pushing to group patches: 10+1 + 10+1 + 10+1 +
> 10+1 == 44 but 10+4 == 14), is the review effort more proportionate
> to total diff size (neutral impact), or is the effort to review
> greater than linear in diff size for each patch (pushing to split
> patches: 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 == 4 but 4^2 == 16)?

Your approach of breaking up patches on the basis of logical changes
is, of course, fine. My personal way of doing things is, if I find a
separate bug, to immediately create a new branch, fix the bug there,
and submit it separately. Yes, it puts a higher workload on the patch
submitter, but I have always felt that the onus is on the submitter to
make the work of the maintainer easier (if you want your patch
accepted). :-)

In general, review overhead is a function of patch size. I don't mind
reviewing more numerous, but trivial patches.

Cheers, Ben

_______________________________________________
DejaGnu mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)