Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755542Ab3EHNF6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2013 09:05:58 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]:58990 "EHLO mail-we0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755397Ab3EHNF5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2013 09:05:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:54 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Mark Brown Cc: Fabio Baltieri , Liam Girdwood , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Walleij , Ola Lilja Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] ASoC: ux500: Do not clear state if already idle Message-ID: <20130508130554.GG3459@gmail.com> References: <20130508080448.GG3102@gmail.com> <1368002354-15471-1-git-send-email-fabio.baltieri@linaro.org> <20130508103401.GX7478@sirena.org.uk> <20130508110451.GC3459@gmail.com> <20130508113124.GH7478@sirena.org.uk> <20130508120326.GF3459@gmail.com> <20130508123902.GL7478@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20130508123902.GL7478@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1625 Lines: 38 On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:03:26PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > Besides, I was more referencing the massively increased effort > > imparted to the developer by applying patches in an arbitrary order. > > Forcing the developer to rearranging and rebase the patch-set causing > > unnecessary merge conflicts. It's better if the maintainer takes the > > patch-set in the order it was written to prevent unnecessary (which is > > the key word here) such things. > > Meh, rebase takes care of all this stuff for you and you really need to > be rebasing anyway to take account of changes sent by other people. > The problem you were having was that you weren't rebasing at all. Eh? That's just plain wrong. Anyway, I'm not talking about any particular incident/session/period. I'm saying, from experience, from the developer side, that if a reviewer goes though a patch-set taking the ones s/he likes leaving the rest behind, there are bound to be merge conflicts and semantic issues which the developer will then have to resolve. Stuff that I believe is added, unnecessary burden which would be easily avoided if the set is firstly reviewed and _then_ applied after the Acks have been awarded. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/