From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=134.134.136.65; helo=mga03.intel.com; envelope-from=jordan.l.justen@intel.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20E022546BA0 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:51:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Mar 2018 09:57:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,462,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="36652141" Received: from bbappudi-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.255.231.49]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2018 09:57:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ard Biesheuvel , Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <152087387414.10707.10574487519176855833@jljusten-skl> From: Jordan Justen In-Reply-To: <77845e91-fa4e-ebcf-ddcb-6414ea223aee@redhat.com> Cc: Anthony Perard , edk2-devel-01 , Brijesh Singh , Phil Dennis-Jordan References: <20180311014926.3049-1-lersek@redhat.com> <20157fd6-a776-fe10-6492-55e85ec03b3f@redhat.com> <152084420932.3437.8016565917691204369@jljusten-skl> <77845e91-fa4e-ebcf-ddcb-6414ea223aee@redhat.com> User-Agent: alot/0.6 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:57:54 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/45] ArmVirtPkg, OvmfPkg: list module-internal headers in INF files X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:51:35 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2018-03-12 05:10:34, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 03/12/18 09:43, Jordan Justen wrote: > > On 2018-03-11 04:54:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > = > >> I am merely saying that it is not always necessary to share your > >> personal journey resulting in the patches at this level of detail, > >> simply because it doesn't scale. > > = > > True. > = > Message received, loud and clear. :) Well, I didn't mean for it too be loud and clear. :) I meant to say, at a first glance, it appeared to be overly partitioned. After looking closer it seemed reasonable. I don't think there's a simple answer to this question, but it is probably better to err on the side of being a bit over partitioned. Taking the task of adding a bunch of .h files to .inf files. If they can be easily identified, then it seems reaonable to have a single patch for a package. If it takes more careful analysis, then I guess it's fine to capture that via separate commits. Sorting .c files in package starts to get a little more dicey. What if a mistake is made? It might be nice to be able to bisect commits to find the issue. (Although the build error probably will lead straight to it as well. :) -Jordan > > Originally I was going to suggest that it might be worth making > > 1 patch per package, but after looking over the changes, it seems that > > scope is maybe a bit to large for that. > > = > >> In any case, I am happy with this to go in as is, if you prefer. > > = > > Also after looking it over, it appears that Laszlo put quite a bit of > > information into each commit message. I agree that it might be sliced > > a little too finely, but I guess after seeing the effort he put into > > it, I prefer Laszlo go ahead and keep the separate commits. > > = > > Series Reviewed-by: Jordan Justen > = > Thank you both for putting up with the excessive detail. I'll attempt to > do better next time. > = > Laszlo > _______________________________________________ > edk2-devel mailing list > edk2-devel@lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel