From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:38:35 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <20130910053835.GC3979@neomailbox.net> References: <1373242365-763-1-git-send-email-mihail.costea2005@gmail.com> <20130810110303.GA849@ritirata.org> <20130810203604.GF849@ritirata.org> <20130909145322.GA3979@neomailbox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9zSXsLTf0vkW971A" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [RFC 1/6] batman-adv: Generalize DAT in order to support any type of data, not only IPv4 Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking --9zSXsLTf0vkW971A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:35:34AM +0300, Mihail Costea wrote: > On 9 September 2013 17:53, Antonio Quartulli wro= te: > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:05:47PM +0300, Mihail Costea wrote: > >> Hi Antonio, > >> > >> Is it possible to send the new model for the generalization as a patch > >> first (the part without IPv6), or maybe everything as a patch as once? > >> Having 5-6 patches to rewrite every time something changes makes the > >> development harder. > > > > Which patches do you want to merge? > > If they are ready it is better to send them as PATCH to the ml and then= base > > your work on top of them assuming they will be merged at some point. > > >=20 > I took a small rest last week and now I'm redoing everything. > I was thinking about sending the first part for merging (the one with > generalization the DAT). > That is the one that needs most rewriting every time because it > affects the most existing code. > The rest I think I can send them together. I understood. Well, the problem is also that this period is a sort of "transition" because batman-adv is getting changed in some of its most impo= rtant part and we would like all the "new features" that are not essential to come aft= er these changes. We still need to merge two (or two and a bit) patchsets before we can start merging other things. This means that before your patchset gets merged we have to wait a bit more. I think it would be better to do this: - for a while you don't care about rebasing on top of master - when you have a some code ready to be reviewed you can put in on a remote= git repo that we can check (e.g. github?) - we/I review the code so that we make it ready to be sent as PATCH - when these two (and a bit) patchsets are merged you can do the final reba= se and send them to the ml for merging. What do you think? In this way we same some painful rebase cycles, but we can continue prepari= ng the code. Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli =2E.each of us alone is worth nothing.. Ernesto "Che" Guevara --9zSXsLTf0vkW971A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSLrBbAAoJEADl0hg6qKeOta8QAIt/zu4E+dnpC5qvzvrM+Z8d +YJO/TrRjPNiw7Ppaft9ASCah9FcwkB49t8cs+1mbblhVD004F+U5aa+5rQ87dxM ZOgbeg925nr5aeSBoWEEBucM1Dc88XkYtHyuSh2KPiadpOQYq6xexsN/SJZ56L4R 4MZCFeCfYWOQP3mY/VQaKh78qUz5XEe3ffKpKAdgaxxL7xi9gLbCDSqAeyByFgCg D2HapGXwk+R5YGjqrYPMItp+Qmimu2fqx7Xp9qDd9bqj4r5nUt/S+I+hA1ym4arZ ojZj1B5JGJBQDnxebYYQ8nzwSPuIU7WfeEhHrMB7IDv49U428cWkn7xBiVuzY6KC nxgf/UPES2zZ7kFi/QbDYqPGSf4UQ+QFsusvbYZxeAmTtZp0AHPPPsAMRcS7ZncQ Via+bdzddehGxFmXnCPjC9y1xZ5BNXTZplki2MX+k0EEq7V/NFFc3QuQViVWEXlu TPmJLoAudRKE2Ql2xwv7Au6G9utysX83XoXH7a+1VdLDPR7WtpIJ4Yl/D4fPPSYz b0QpSvvOCtSLVwmKnBy9QDM2TZr2iYlfFnukskyEw2mR9ncGGAP8oSVviJziQP/4 g533s+EbqluewG7MoUkpFXf1zEzPMYie+mMmzQYIKSDmb/SpVC1OlA0zcFRAgGX+ V32YQ7z8byh448rSJYAB =LSIi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9zSXsLTf0vkW971A--