From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io;
 dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 209.132.183.28, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by groups.io with SMTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2019 10:45:19 -0700
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A58308A968;
	Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-117-21.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.21])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9501E60BF1;
	Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:45:17 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH] Simplify edksetup.sh
To: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com>, devel@edk2.groups.io,
 Bob Feng <bob.c.feng@intel.com>, Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>,
 Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>,
 Michael Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>, Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
References: <20190710211726.10100-1-rebecca@bsdio.com>
 <8f3a022b-de01-27b7-d9d3-064eb1bf7232@redhat.com>
 <7c2a34b2-c582-496e-b5c8-12035432a9fe@bsdio.com>
From: "Laszlo Ersek" <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <b175dd8d-ca2b-53bc-45a8-d34bf8b6b2ff@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 19:45:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7c2a34b2-c582-496e-b5c8-12035432a9fe@bsdio.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.41]); Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 07/15/19 16:40, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> On 2019-07-12 16:21, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>> As long as my opinion counts... (and I totally don't insist that it do):
>> the above task list will make for a nice 6-part patch series. :)
>>
>> (When someone is tempted to capture a *list* of changes in a single
>> commit message, that frequently indicates that the patch should be split
>> up, so that each change get its own dedicated patch.)
> 
> 
> While I can see your point, in this case I think splitting the patch up
> into 6 parts would be excessive. All the changes are to a single file,
> and a couple of the changes in the list are to single lines.

Fair enough, as long as you don't insist on my Reviewed-by in
particular. :) I won't block the patch just because of this, but I also
won't try to decipher changes made for six different goals from each other.

Thanks,
Laszlo