From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EVuVj-0003Jc-T5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:28:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9THSImX000430; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:28:18 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9THSIdm005006 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:28:18 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EVuV7-0008TI-Rz for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 17:28:17 +0000 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:28:17 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups Message-ID: <20051029172817.GQ24883@nightcrawler> References: <200510231545.16596.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20051029160410.GO24883@nightcrawler> <200510300140.41639.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200510300220.02458.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IpljlC28XhFjURzf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510300220.02458.jstubbs@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 82aab491-6adb-421b-823a-1abeb06a0cf1 X-Archives-Hash: 26f44d67bca64014d395b78c711ad0cb --IpljlC28XhFjURzf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:20:02AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > Trying to alter patches that have been split up is a PITA. Missed a var r= ename=20 > in the patch just sent. :/ Heh, nice timing on the max_fd_limit, beat me in sending it by 46=20 seconds :) Personally... for a change like what you're introducing into=20 portage_exec, I prefer a single patch. Chunked patched make sense depending on a somewhat subjective=20 grouping; in this case, familiar with the underlying code so=20 interpretting it all is possible, but if it were any other source I=20 would've resorted to applying the series, then diffing between svn and=20 the changes. Your call really, since you're generating the patch(es). ~harring --IpljlC28XhFjURzf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDY7ExvdBxRoA3VU0RAnsPAJ9YF0xFAtz7d0Hb/F7XNN5+m5DQJACg8AWg PhckzYY6m66PeL19UuP3nJY= =ZlI5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IpljlC28XhFjURzf-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list