Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: small vs large patch sets ?
From: Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:15:31 +0200
Hi Nicolas, 2017-04-19 13:11 GMT+02:00 Bertin Nicolas <nicolas.bertin () al-enterprise com> :
Hi, I'm updating 2 dissectors (packet-noe and packet-ua3g). So far, I've submitted changes one by one (small patches). I believe it's the preferred solution for reviewers instead of a large patch with everything in it. Can you confirm?
Indeed it's less frightening ;) More seriously, reviewing a bug patch requires to have much more spare time in a row than reviewing small incremental ones, so your approach makes sense.
Until now, I've wait for a patch to be merged before submitting the next one. My workflow is probably wrong... Is there a better way of doing thing?
You can push all patches with the same topic, and they will be reviewed one after each other. Best regards, Pascal.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- small vs large patch sets ? Bertin Nicolas (Apr 19)
- Re: small vs large patch sets ? Pascal Quantin (Apr 19)
- Re: small vs large patch sets ? Roland Knall (Apr 19)
- Re: small vs large patch sets ? Michael Mann (Apr 19)
- Re: small vs large patch sets ? Pascal Quantin (Apr 19)