From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D641F5AE for ; Fri, 28 May 2021 05:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234398AbhE1FnZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2021 01:43:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55640 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234038AbhE1FnY (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 May 2021 01:43:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x331.google.com (mail-ot1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6A25C061574 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x331.google.com with SMTP id i14-20020a9d624e0000b029033683c71999so2480422otk.5 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HHCn+BWV1ldwrBGRdDawRflDqRxdGRn3L2Zl4dCW8r8=; b=tK9cIQCD8NleZZwIJzeKqmZjdzAaTTPDl7FALDcjHoVj82q1jFz3IM7r2tfaNIxJHn xa+nPR7zq/YvRcSEwHmeryKdkQJBpggrZJQ86xDoNMhuTPm7mB+QudyswtXm8d1SjPJv bjXOggiHgLD8tWWrLZjFzPLyneOwv50MtkYm+pPj0GdEGWkZZukHKpID7pDdqF1fj11L yajkNLrnAQjJq5JoGuTdrF9NL2VM5YG01czvYdvUn+PBpBcG2E3KK3sQk8E5zZIIj2zj BT3d/D/P9PX4jGxt8dfoNIDjQore5zzm2PKgjck68M/h0GpepMCZbz79bYeW1c2xis5U 2d5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HHCn+BWV1ldwrBGRdDawRflDqRxdGRn3L2Zl4dCW8r8=; b=uMPjNr9+q767LYxMyunxB6ehSF0u9NLGmm+D0WmE/uoh5EilAaBy5bd1BX4GUAAnya 9P5KWuUOKqlcpsLjdJ2EP8NVro+6W8+alROycDS3ZJ4MrCPcZ/iKeRKTEj4E3L278nfr xRNRjJGQImBnFwflddEfgEStMEybhajLtgrEJGuxXQ0gWyWwd39j9ewZkfw0lzdKgAqd cBDdL4LRGyUTBxnivAOi5jKkpV6hQTJoWRRjV1HdzRH+Pn7knqb0OuCCWNXZ8Hq9kWkn TEH/TKhX9sd5KCAHpyzEM98+XH1jnEvJRFX9KfISjBu/7+/AHNc2FBuVVl7BGHF+WHor MNog== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315+Z3v6mh7IHjO0EoAw07/IUPTdIdq65b0kznoCPS/vR/Pow82 kuPPn0zw40C+zTI7yCIVxK0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6TXg6EvulmCEOAXHaZBqXE23y1bWE6SVnxOQ6rxVNLHd0I6dyFTr7qbMU5tvi5WC2JLRwXg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1bd4:: with SMTP id v20mr5875207ota.101.1622180509302; Thu, 27 May 2021 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (fixed-187-190-78-172.totalplay.net. [187.190.78.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s187sm977748oig.6.2021.05.27.22.41.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 27 May 2021 22:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 00:41:47 -0500 From: Felipe Contreras To: Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Tan Cc: avarab@gmail.com, git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, j6t@kdbg.org Message-ID: <60b0829b6eed1_4a64b2084c@natae.notmuch> In-Reply-To: References: <20210527170832.2669483-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] fsck: better "invalid object" error reporting Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Tan writes: > > > My main comment as a reviewer is I think that there are a lot of > > unrelated changes in this patch set ... > > Thanks for reviewing. I share the same feeling, not specifically > about this series, but I find that "doing too many while-at-it > changes" is shared among the topics by the same author, and I often > wish each topic were more focused. The author has a name. I understand why as a reviewer you want a small patch series, but as a patch-writer you want your code to land on master. Perhaps if there was an actual incentive to split a patch series more people would do so, but in my personal experience that has not been the case. If I had to name the reason why some of my patches have landed on master I would say it's *arbitrary*. Maybe you catch reviewers on a good mood, or the maintainer in-between release candidates. But regardless of the actual reason, patch-series' size doesn't seem to be a huge factor. As exhibit I can five two patch-series of mine: 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20201223144845.143039-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com/ 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20210426161458.49860-1-felipe.contreras@gmail.com/ The first one is 4 patches. The second one is 43. The second one receved feedback from the maintainer. The first one was complerely ignored. Neither were acceped. This is not intended to point fingers at anyone, merely to state the a mathematical fact. Splitting a patch series is usually more work. If there's no real incentive for a submitter to do so, why would she/he? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras