Mike (mwester) wrote:
> Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:06:21PM -0600, Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>
>>> 70 patches on the list????
>>>
>>> I presume somebody is making a point with this.  Yes, ok, _I_ get it  -
>>> reading the emails on the list using a cell phone and gprs connection
>>> and tiny screen REALLY REALLY Reallly SUCKS when the mailing list also
>>> used as a patch review list.
>> Actually, the point is the opposite.  Spamming the list where everyone
>> is means bugs get caught and working-but-incorrect things get pointed
>> out.
> 
> Yes, in the *NORMAL* case that would be true.  Seven patches - fine,
> that would work.  10x more than that? - that's clearly a case where
> clear thinking would put the changes on a branch and have it reviewed
> there.  (Which is exactly what recent discussions here have been about,
> hence my conclusion that this patch-mega-bomb was intended to make a
> point about that discussion.)
> 
> 70 patches?  Come on, who's going to extract and apply 70 patches from
> email?  Not likely!

I would also suggest that before sending large patch sets to the list, 
use git rebase --interactive to combine patches. For review we want to 
see what the changes are, not how you created the changes.

I do know some people do not like to lose their history though.

And I hope that 70 patches is not a regular occurrence.

Philip