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

[Mihail Costea <mihail.costea90@gmail.com>]

On 11 September 2013 00:01, Antonio Quartulli <antonio@meshcoding.com> wrote:
> 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).
>

I haven't used it before but I will try it now.

>>
>> 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.
>

The changes I'm doing now are quite big (as they change the first patch).
That will make big changes to the code base.
I will send next days the first patch for review first because it
changed how the
generalization works (more exactly I have remove mac_addr to introduce a new
void * member).

I'd like the base to be written correctly as everything depends on the
structures
introduces there.

>
>> 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.

Thanks,
Mihail