Re: VxWorks Patches Back from the Dead!

[rbmj <rbmj at verizon dot net>]

On 9/10/2012 9:35 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 09/09/12 08:54, rbmj wrote:
> > Just because I *love* bothering everyone with emails...
>
> I don't mind, as long as you don't expect me to do anything
> until I'm certain you've stabilized the patch ;)
> I'm glad you rolled it up into one patch, because I was
> eventually going to ask you to do that.  Thank  you.

I keep thinking everything is stable, but then something changes 
(bitrot? something elsewhere in GCC? I don't know) and I have to 
regroup.  Sorry for changing everything 10 times - please bear with me.

At this point, I've recompiled with different settings about 10 times 
and it hasn't broken itself yet.  I've tried in a different VM and it 
works there too. So *hopefully* it should be good.

On the other hand, I've read this on the website:

> Don't mix together changes made for different reasons. Send them individually.  Ideally, each change you send should be impossible to subdivide into 
parts that we might want to consider separately, because each of its 
parts gets its motivation from the other parts

"impossible to subdivide into parts" seems like one patch per 
fixincludes rule (am I looking at the wrong level of granularity here?). 
 At the same time, it's a pain in the rear to worry about 12 different 
commits (especially when I'm making changes, I git rebase a TON).  I'm 
also not sure about practicality of this approach in terms of the amount 
of work it creates on all ends.

Unless cosmic rays break everything again, that should be all.

Thanks,
Robert Mason