Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:01:46AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> I know we aren't using git, but I would like to see git-style commits in >> cvs, where each 'cvs commit' invocation is a single logical change. >> That makes it far easier to understand history. I don't mean that each >> patch should be split, but fixing upstream bugs and changing makefiles >> to add clang support seem like separate things. > > Eh, no. The issues fixes are all needed to get the clang build running, > as it would otherwise require more warnings to be disabled. I can see the notion that the fixes should precede enabling clang. But they are not properly part of the same commit. >> The patches are not all obvious. I don't particularly suspect that any of >> them are incorrect, and I think odds are very good that they are all ok. >> But they do not have comments, and there are not links to the upstream >> bugtracker. It seems like many of them should be upstream. > > The majority for older release, so upstream is not likely to pick those > up.... I take it we have enough Xen developers to handle the remaining > changes. That's no excuse for not having comments and not making the upstream status clear.
Description: PGP signature