Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:23:58 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl
Cc: akpm@digeo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cryptoloop
Message-ID: <20030703172358.B10499@infradead.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, akpm@digeo.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
References: <UTC200307022100.h62L06a22118.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <UTC200307022100.h62L06a22118.aeb@smtp.cwi.nl>; from Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl on Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:00:06PM +0200
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1066
Lines: 27

On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 11:00:06PM +0200, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
> No, the point of such a series is that each patch does something
> clearly defined, is an improvement even when the author dies the
> next day so that all further work is lost.

*nod*

> You should never accept a patch that makes things worse and is only
> justified by a future one.

well, I almost agree.  If the other patch is posted at the same time
or the regression is for less important code (say a legacy driver)
this can be ok.

>     So for everyone except the guy who's writing the code it is best to have
>     all the work in place and reviewable at the same time.
> 
> No. Some changes are too large for that.

right, there's changes that are too large.  But it really helps a lot
to send a series of patches to give a broader view.

-
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/