On Wed, 08 May 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:03:26PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Besides, I was more referencing the massively increased effort imparted to the developer by applying patches in an arbitrary order. Forcing the developer to rearranging and rebase the patch-set causing unnecessary merge conflicts. It's better if the maintainer takes the patch-set in the order it was written to prevent unnecessary (which is the key word here) such things.
Meh, rebase takes care of all this stuff for you and you really need to be rebasing anyway to take account of changes sent by other people.
The problem you were having was that you weren't rebasing at all.
Eh? That's just plain wrong.
Anyway, I'm not talking about any particular incident/session/period.
I'm saying, from experience, from the developer side, that if a reviewer goes though a patch-set taking the ones s/he likes leaving the rest behind, there are bound to be merge conflicts and semantic issues which the developer will then have to resolve. Stuff that I believe is added, unnecessary burden which would be easily avoided if the set is firstly reviewed and _then_ applied after the Acks have been awarded.