From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38494203E3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 17:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757309AbcGZRMW (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:12:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:64294 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757012AbcGZRMU (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:12:20 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154F62E3B2; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:12:19 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Dcd3lKqP0vrVtFN3sQpRnt0Axd4=; b=R4Q0pk UYUC4a20/bhWRw4n60CrQJGJ/+vYJqZfxjXxMDD5p+UaX6JvWpvma+YifsHniXwh dRMBctA/kq1ZHFl6xTpRk5tPOtbnQHxxB2v5Hqf4Ow4+hszIZBSM29NHWROZJ93o UKUn3fDcdpTy6Uli+4im3rt+Vh56Q0a0i3VWk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=RAwT4+dNEFmbbsgOWYNm04ziND5OitSt uT4ZrQ7E3e1wDUTU5MGb3LuqHQvRsdzv0wmjcHuhVha0sZzC70RUBE0QqPHDdHLG qWwm912eoKEeue5Lxt6rnXYC5oJey/4VPahQL1/T8PQOLI50AOvkj4MCCxb821xg JZ2f98Trw0c= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2682E3B1; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87A4B2E3B0; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 13:12:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sunshine , Jeff King , Johannes Sixt , Duy Nguyen , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/16] am -3: use merge_recursive() directly again References: <667d2f991f1423b138a746f4c685b13c5b572a83.1469187653.git.johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:12:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:30:55 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 1B92398E-5354-11E6-93CB-EE617A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > If you want, I can break out the subsequent patches into a separate > series. I do not think that would help anybody, as we'll have to review them anyway. If some of the the later ones were "oops, this earlier step did an incomplete job and here is a fix-up", then squashing them into the step where such a mistake happens may reduce the review load, but I suspect that is not the case (iow, they are enhancements and the earlier ones can stand on their own). > I may have missed something as stupid as an unclosed file handle, after > all. Yes, reviewing the same change over and over, especially if the change is your own, tends to have diminishing rate of bug yields, which is why they need to be reviewed by fresh set of eyes.