From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41098)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1WX8vV-0001mJ-Lr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:45:30 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1WX8vQ-0000ZT-Qy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:45:25 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27994)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <quintela@redhat.com>) id 1WX8vQ-0000ZN-I5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:45:20 -0400
From: Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <87txa5fhyz.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> (Markus Armbruster's
	message of "Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:21:24 +0200")
References: <1396840915-10384-1-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com>
	<1396840915-10384-3-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA9Fa5ntLy7ktQjnrxdxoueecSqi_W6yTe-78PFWHd=cfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<8738hpbbtx.fsf@elfo.mitica>
	<CAFEAcA-3n_PF=R5wdkPgq8J=ZvkjnCcJixB4SNvSB6hwW+z2Tg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87txa5fhyz.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:45:15 +0200
Message-ID: <87wqf19ulg.fsf@elfo.mitica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/97] savevm: Remove all the unneded
	version_minimum_id_old (Massive)
Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> On 7 April 2014 12:47, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm really not a fan of this kind of single patch that
>>>> touches a huge number of files at once. They're basically
>>>> impossible to review and they introduce the possibility
>>>> of conflicts between submaintainer tree changes and the
>>>> big patch. There's no reason to have all these changes
>>>> in a single patch -- I'd much rather see one patch per
>>>> subsystem sent to the relevant submaintainers, plus
>>>> one for all the unmaintained stuff which can go via
>>>> the migration tree.
>>>
>>> If you say how to split, I am all for it.
>>
>> Like I said, one patch per maintained subsystem,
>> one patch for the leftovers.
>
> Easier said than done.  MAINTAINERS has more than 100 sections, yet it
> leaves more than 1200 files uncovered, roughly half of them C sources.
> I doubt splitting mechanically along those sections plus a catch-all
> patch for the "unmaintained" files would be appreciated.
>
> Could you give some guidance on splitting?

+1