Hi Rafael.
As you may recall, I started working on a bunch of patches about six
months ago that have been very slow to get merged (yes, mostly my fault
for perhaps being overly careful about testing). Unfortunately, in the
process, you've merged other patches (the compression ones) that mean I
have to rewrite what I'd already done.
To avoid this happening again, I'm proposing that I only work on one
patch (or very small series of patches) at a time, and not start on the
next one until you've merged the previous into your for-Linus tree. I'll
keep an overall plan of where I intend to go, but take things very
slowly so I don't waste time like that again.
The downside is that means I won't always be able to show demonstrably
improvements immediately, but I guess we'll just have to cope with that
situation. I guess I can mitigate this downside by explaining where I'm
going, even if I can't provide numbers to prove it will be a real
improvement.
Does this sound feasible to you?
Regards,
Nigel
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi Rafael.
Hi,
> As you may recall, I started working on a bunch of patches about six
> months ago that have been very slow to get merged (yes, mostly my fault
> for perhaps being overly careful about testing). Unfortunately, in the
> process, you've merged other patches (the compression ones) that mean I
> have to rewrite what I'd already done.
>
> To avoid this happening again, I'm proposing that I only work on one
> patch (or very small series of patches) at a time, and not start on the
> next one until you've merged the previous into your for-Linus tree. I'll
> keep an overall plan of where I intend to go, but take things very
> slowly so I don't waste time like that again.
>
> The downside is that means I won't always be able to show demonstrably
> improvements immediately, but I guess we'll just have to cope with that
> situation. I guess I can mitigate this downside by explaining where I'm
> going, even if I can't provide numbers to prove it will be a real
> improvement.
>
> Does this sound feasible to you?
Yes, sounds reasonable.
Thanks,
Rafael