From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAE8FC433F5 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1357099AbiBNRfB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:35:01 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:57182 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1357102AbiBNRfA (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:35:00 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3816540F for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F5411DC56; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:34:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=XSKm2MJZ9zpq 8+rd8Nq+xLGeTIJka0TmEWR9BTx+68U=; b=nMflwmVirl7FXVtpZP/IEPEJXEg5 RTnWKOeMLqJ8Ip2lr6ZLC0EqAu2tmSkq1+pY/dhNJew93a7KEIAYtWFtbHmo4a5Q rnGJ6za61mZSAeFP8DCx+9XLL33J3diaMSNP9eBOoLbwTbsZGgi4dvIUIS7mPaTL ioD+HrXtpzRComg= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AE411DC55; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:34:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.212.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D6B911DC54; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:34:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Glen Choo Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Atharva Raykar , Christian Couder , Emily Shaffer , Jonathan Nieder , Kaartic Sivaraam , pc44800@gmail.com, Shourya Shukla , =?utf-8?Q?=C3=86var_Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0_Bjarmaso?= =?utf-8?Q?n?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/20] submodule: convert the rest of 'update' to C References: <20220208083952.35036-1-chooglen@google.com> <20220210092833.55360-1-chooglen@google.com> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:34:47 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Glen Choo's message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:37:28 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 686866AE-8DBC-11EC-84B7-CB998F0A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Glen Choo writes: > Hm, I haven't looked at where the conflicts are yet, but I'll get to it > as I'm reviewing the rest of the feedback. > > And on that note, what do you think of =C3=86var's suggestion to split = off > the 'easy to review' and 'obvious' patches into their own preparatory > series? I wonder if this would make it harder or easier to manage the > conflicts. It depends on how small an interaction the "obvious and easy" part has with topics in flight. In the best case, if there aren't any the preparatory series may even graduate before the other topics that interfere with the main part of this series becomes ready. In a worse case, what the preparatory work to lay more solid foundation wants to do may contradict what some of these topics in flight want to do. Such semantic conflicts need to be resolved before the main part (and these interfering topics) can move forward, and with "split off", the core of the contradicting wish may become easier to see and what needs to be resolved may become clearer. So, I do not think of a way for such a split to make things harder for later. Of course, the "easy to review" and "obvious" part has to be justifiable on its own, i.e. "a larger series wants to build on this foundation and for it to work this part must be done in this way", when the other topics wants to do the part in question differently, becomes a much weaker justification. But if it is truly "obvious", it is unlikely that the benefit of the change becomes harder to justify.