Re: [PATCH] Documentation/SendingPatches [2 of 2].

[Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>]

Rob Landley wrote:
> The bit about log rolling.
> 
> --- linux-new/Documentation/SubmittingPatches	2003-06-11 15:54:29.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-new/Documentation/SubmittingPatches2	2003-06-11 15:54:06.000000000 -0400
> @@ -92,6 +92,16 @@
>  complete, that is OK.  Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
>  in your patch description.
>  
> +In politics, there's a concept called "log rolling", where unrelated
> +amendments are bundled together so that changes people want grease the
> +way for changes they don't.  Do not do this.  It's annoying.
> +
> +In coding, this sort of thing can be very subtle, such as performance increases
> +that help your new version perform as well as the original while doing more
> +work, but which could also have been applied to the original making it even
> +faster.  The linux-kernel guys are very good at taking the chocolate coating
> +and leaving the pill behind.  This can be very frustrating to developers, but
> +it's one of the big reasons open source produces such excellent results.

They are also likely to tell _you_ to take the pill out, clean up the 
chocolate, and resubmit; and that takes more of _your_ time.

(And I do like that you broke the log rolling change out; very good 
object lesson. :) )

Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter           \                  it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------