Re: Submitting multiple patches (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix ERR_EXIT behavior in function calls and "always" statements)

[Philippe Altherr <philippe.altherr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Namely, Philippe felt it important to
have one patch that completely backed out two or more of my previous
patches, followed by a patch that incorporated a useful part of one of
those patches.

Did I do that? My original big/unique patch did indeed remove your fix to one of the tests in C03traps.ztst and at the same time added an equivalent but different fix. I realized this only after sending my original patch. My split patches no longer do that; patch-01-revert-mistaken-errexit-patches.txt no longer reverts your fix. I'm not aware of another of your changes that I revert in patch-01-revert-mistaken-errexit-patches.txt and add back in one of the later patches. Did I overlook something?

Philippe

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:54 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 1:11 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The ONLY issue with Philippe's message, if there is any
> problem with it at all, is that two of the patches overlapped on one
> of the files, such that one backed out a change and then another put
> that same change back again.

This also seems to reflect a philosophical point that it might be
worth mentioning in the development guide (which is probably overdue
for an overhaul in general).  Namely, Philippe felt it important to
have one patch that completely backed out two or more of my previous
patches, followed by a patch that incorporated a useful part of one of
those patches.

This isn't generally how we've approached things -- we just move
forward incrementally from the tip of the branch.