All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts at tessares.net>
To: mptcp at lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [MPTCP] [Weekly meetings] MoM - 25th of April 2019
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 18:58:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <384e78ed-6307-d975-e5c7-0b9d6c149f0a@tessares.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20190502155303.er6eqhxw5n3libcs@breakpoint.cc

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1960 bytes --]

Hi Florian,

On 02/05/2019 17:53, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Paolo Abeni <pabeni(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 11:02 -0700, Mat Martineau wrote:
>>> If we can merge the beginning of the patch set in our repo, I think it 
>>> will be much easier to coordinate our work by appending commits rather 
>>> than constantly revising the whole series. I think we're getting close to 
>>> that point, and after the pushing RFCv10 we may be in a good position to 
>>> merge the earlier patches and then focus on new commits (or commits that 
>>> can be easily squashed).
>>
>> I agree with this kind of approach. I would take it to the extent of
>> accepting the patchset as is, and than handle whatever is needed with
>> incremental patches.
> 
> Also agree.  Squashing simple changes (test case improvements, spelling
> fixes and so on) is fine but for everything else I would prefer new commits.
> 
> There can be one larger rebase/squash effort once its decided that a
> netdev rfc submission is to be made.
> 
> Until then, constant rebasing is just a waste of time imo.
> 
> New commits-on-top would make it easier to track development too.
> 

Sorry, I just saw your email now and understood what Paolo and Mat were
saying about incremental patches: we can focus on new commits and rebase
later.

Anyway I guess it is easier if one person does that to avoid working on
a different base.
As I use to work with TopGit, I think it is not an issue for me to
maintain the code with this tool. If one fix is linked to one commit, I
can cherry-pick/apply the fix in the right topic. If not, I can also add
a new topic at the end. Except if you think using TopGit will create
more issues for you guys than it will solve?

Thanks,
Matt
-- 
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

             reply	other threads:[~2019-05-02 16:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-02 16:58 Matthieu Baerts [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-02 15:53 [MPTCP] [Weekly meetings] MoM - 25th of April 2019 Florian Westphal
2019-04-30 23:18 Mat Martineau
2019-04-30 14:29 Paolo Abeni
2019-04-29 18:02 Mat Martineau
2019-04-29 14:00 Matthieu Baerts
2019-04-29 13:29 Paolo Abeni
2019-04-27  0:29 Mat Martineau
2019-04-25 16:28 Matthieu Baerts

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=384e78ed-6307-d975-e5c7-0b9d6c149f0a@tessares.net \
    --to=unknown@example.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.