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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DejaGnu mailing list DejaGnu@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu
