Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Adjustments for a lot of function implementations | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:16:22 +0100 |
| |
> While we do not mind cleanup patches, the way you post them (one fix per file)
I find it safer in this way while I was browsing through the landscape of Linux software components.
> is really annoying and takes us too much time to review.
It is just the case that there are so many remaining open issues.
> I'll take the "Fix a possible null pointer" patch since it is an actual bug fix,
Thanks for a bit of change acceptance.
> but will reject the others, not just this driver but all of them that are currently > pending in our patchwork (https://patchwork.linuxtv.org).
Will any chances evolve to integrate 146 patches in any other combination?
> Feel free to repost, but only if you organize the patch as either fixing the same type of > issue for a whole subdirectory (media/usb, media/pci, etc)
Can we achieve an agreement on the shown change patterns?
Is a consensus possible for involved update candidates?
> or fixing all issues for a single driver.
I find that I did this already.
> Actual bug fixes (like the null pointer patch in this series) can still be posted as > separate patches, but cleanups shouldn't.
I got an other software development opinion.
> Just so you know, I'll reject any future patch series that do not follow these rules. > Just use common sense when posting these things in the future.
Do we need to try any additional communication tools out?
> I would also suggest that your time might be spent more productively if you would > work on some more useful projects.
I hope that various change possibilities (from my selection) will become useful for more Linux users. How will the clarification evolve further?
Regards, Markus
| |