From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Philipp Stephani Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Dynamic loading progress Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2015 13:35:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87zizeme8k.fsf@tromey.com> <5625B166.3080104@dancol.org> <86zizdczhp.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <871tc315y3.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343d0e06d6710524078db4 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446989742 20596 80.91.229.3 (8 Nov 2015 13:35:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 13:35:42 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 08 14:35:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvQ8C-0000u2-LJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 14:35:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47421 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvQ8B-00049x-Od for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:35:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41293) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvQ86-00048z-OX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:35:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvQ85-0005nQ-Sr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:35:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]:33826) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvQ85-0005nL-H8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:35:33 -0500 Original-Received: by wikq8 with SMTP id q8so54006215wik.1 for ; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 05:35:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=o/Pn3VTCZc+jd3S7u1GxbsSBkr67X0oKSdhl8w1VKq0=; b=QpfoUjhVB9XKX5FJfuQ7ffSNkc9+ecNnE4Zm53/coSJ+n8aDDIyaSU6+QamPNbsCz/ U8LqJyL4js+MAdL3ZOpC2R4aXHbHxjb3KuEUpYrWvpT+CF0mN5NWLeyCGMhrvngvr5IC qFNDnlKYzah+BJtTqZNbrwuvG1o7iH6uqqI2ojZyjtKw/BdA/DFF4YXKl2FwVzo67NIZ oH0OgCYKAwxH/+7kndkymSChW+f/mvnqtKoEJNAXz9xwsI6s13WpOEMafXrDRlIfD52t +Ua2U0ldJLXrzujfDL4d5l8c876HQs3mny4bI9tOY8arbNQYuI+dB4TKzU+Sw5ITpVP+ 5dHQ== X-Received: by 10.194.2.5 with SMTP id 5mr28850741wjq.153.1446989732958; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 05:35:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:193609 Archived-At: --047d7b343d0e06d6710524078db4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Steinar Bang schrieb am So., 8. Nov. 2015 um 13:51 Uhr: > >>>>> Philipp Stephani : > > > Would you prefer this as one big patch, or as several smaller ones? A big > > patch would make it easier to see the code in context, but splitting it > up > > might increase review speed. > > Unless you have done strange rebasing on your git branch, but instead > used plain merges, then I would suggest doing a git merge instead of > using patches. > Fine with me, though that will likely produce lots of 'noise' commits because we weren't particularly strict about history cleanliness. --047d7b343d0e06d6710524078db4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Steina= r Bang <sb@dod.no> schrieb am So., 8= . Nov. 2015 um 13:51=C2=A0Uhr:
>= >>>> Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2@gmail.com>:

> Would you prefer this as one big patch, or as several smaller ones? A = big
> patch would make it easier to see the code in context, but splitting i= t up
> might increase review speed.

Unless you have done strange rebasing on your git branch, but instead
used plain merges, then I would suggest doing a git merge instead of
using patches.

Fine with me, though tha= t will likely produce lots of 'noise' commits because we weren'= t particularly strict about history cleanliness.
--047d7b343d0e06d6710524078db4--