From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Konstantin Kharlamov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: contributing to Emacs Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:36:20 +0300 Message-ID: References: <83v8fnslfz.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8fnh1h2.fsf@web.de> <83mt0zs9rc.fsf@gnu.org> <0a968a4e1b267c0f15dd237e6ea12a709fc06d5e.camel@yandex.ru> <838rcisj7o.fsf@gnu.org> <6537fa5fa5c1fe8437ed99ee0988e35895f5a54b.camel@yandex.ru> <8423a35750d8d8e0437c7708f6b4d0bbdfdb7fe0.camel@yandex.ru> <87o7ldf7ky.fsf@web.de> <8cc19084ab18d0adb0f2cee4af14aa1b1d914a83.camel@yandex.ru> <87352p9izj.fsf@yahoo.com> <87pm5mvfgi.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83v8fe1wcm.fsf@gnu.org> <87edm1uxze.fsf@melete.silentflame.com> <83ttuxz4ne.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="17392"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.3 Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, arne_bab@web.de, ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Sean Whitton Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 24 15:05:13 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qD2wz-0004Nu-2U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:05:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD2VF-0006sq-CF; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:36:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD2VD-0006sS-I3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:36:31 -0400 Original-Received: from forward500c.mail.yandex.net ([2a02:6b8:c03:500:1:45:d181:d500]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qD2VA-0001x5-Nr; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:36:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-59.iva.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-59.iva.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0c:1e2b:0:640:94b5:0]) by forward500c.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 964BB5EB73; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:36:21 +0300 (MSK) Original-Received: by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-59.iva.yp-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id KaH2XqODeGk0-pjvP6dkJ; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 15:36:21 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1687610181; bh=u8zKAGN51M0D4IBKmKreW+X2EWZyYqxtwGvKUIMEcSk=; h=References:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID; b=KUftNlFoQALEiRvtFIko4D2HVuk3QY446+cVqKezYh1xLz1lNrhUoACU344ZYF+a0 EB+dI7fIkzT/4JyFm91Lbm1csvjbvf5vfRhYnilsh3fz0EWzlXOV3p7uTDNLyhuaLD q0juGvv/ZsNU930e7K8YFhR+qZRKMicHiOkAPrhM= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-production-main-59.iva.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru In-Reply-To: <83ttuxz4ne.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a02:6b8:c03:500:1:45:d181:d500; envelope-from=hi-angel@yandex.ru; helo=forward500c.mail.yandex.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307180 Archived-At: On Sat, 2023-06-24 at 10:43 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >=20 > What most people do instead is they provide a series where each patch > is a step towards the solution.=C2=A0 First, a patch with some refactorin= g, > then another patch with the first aspect of the solution, another > patch with the second aspect, etc.=C2=A0 Such series make no sense as a > series, because the patches are not really independent; instead, they > are _incremental_.=C2=A0 For example, it usually makes no sense to do the > refactoring if we aren't installing the changes which need it. I might be misunderstanding something, but as someone who regularly posts s= uch "incremental changes" at my work, I tend to disagree that such refactoring = will not be needed if the final change not applied. The point of such refactoring is improving existing code. Like, separating larger functions to smaller one, encapsulating logic and reducing variables scope, constifying stuff=E2=80=A6 I agree that the driving force for these = changes is making some final change that adds some new feature or something=E2=80=A6 H= owever, even if the final feature does not make it through, the changes per se make code easier to maintain and review. I even had multiple occasions at work where = I was making such incremental changes, but the final point I was doing them for w= as never reached for one reason or another. But we still applied the refactori= ng, because it's an improvement nonetheless. > Moreover, this technique frequently leads to multiple patches touching > the same places several times, so when you review the first patch, you > are looking at code that will be modified later, and risk providing > comments that are irrelevant, because a later patch in the series > rewrites that code anyway, perhaps exactly in a way that you want to > tell the contributor to use. Actually, this is exactly how review works. It *does not* matter if later c= ode rewrote the same place again. If you found a problem in *current* commit/pa= tch, that means that exactly *this* commit/patch needs to be fixed. That =CE=B1) simplifies review, and =CE=B2) makes sure that if later commit= gets reverted at some point, the code that is left would still be valid.