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

[Antonio Quartulli <antonio@meshcoding.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3598 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:45:44PM +0300, Mihail Costea wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 08:38, Antonio Quartulli <antonio@meshcoding.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:35:34AM +0300, Mihail Costea wrote:
> >> On 9 September 2013 17:53, Antonio Quartulli <antonio@meshcoding.com> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> 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 important
> > part
> > and we would like all the "new features" that are not essential to come after
> > 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 rebase
> >   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 preparing
> > the code.
> >
> 
> I understand, but it should be done similar? Like multiple patches?

multiple patches is always the way to go when we have more than one change, we
cannot mix them all.

> The idea is that I might add some patches and then find a bug that was
> in an old patch.
> That means to find the patch with the bug, resolve it, and re-patch
> everything after it.

this is normal when you have multiple patches: if a fix in the very first patch
of a series creates conflicts with all the following ones, you have to adjust
them all (this is what the "git rebase" helps you with).

> 
> It would be easier to do the changes directly on the existing code
> than restart everything from scratch.

restart everything from scratch? I did not get this.


> I'm not sure if this is what you meant by using github.
> 

for using github (or whetever else remote repository) I meant that instead of
rebasing on top of master every time you have to send the patches to the ml for
review, you could upload your code on a remote repo and have us reviewing the
code on there directly.
In this way you save the pain of respinning all your patches on top of master
every week..

I hope I clarified your doubts.

Cheers,


-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]