Andy Parkins wrote: > Digressing a little: what is the polite form of patches for git? My strategy > with this set was to make each patch as small as possible to reach my end > point. If those patches were okayed on the list, I could then do a "make > more beautiful" patch, which is really nothing to do with the original > changes to functionality but would make the code prettier. I believe the order of preferrence goes: tested, concise, short. Linus has a nasty habit of ending his mails with "totally untested ofcourse", which is not a good strategy to adopt if you want your patches included. > Really I'm asking > what level of intrusiveness of patch is not considered rude? In making my > patches, should I ride rough-shod over current implementation and just do it > how I'd do it or should I try to fit in (as I did in this case)? > If you *need* to change something, change it. If you *want* to change something just because it's not written the way you would write it, back away. If you think some interface you're using needs clearing up (codewise or with extra comments), send a separate patch for that so the actual feature/bugfix you're sending in doesn't drown in cosmetic changes to the interfaces the patch uses/touches. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Fri Nov 03 21:51:55 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-11-03 21:55:53 EST