[tz] [PROPOSED PATCH 3/3] zic: check more consistently for I/O errors and improve diagnostics

Paul Eggert eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Tue Aug 19 08:52:23 UTC 2014


Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> this would be much better as a number of separate patches:

That's debatable.  Given a set of closely related patches, I often find 
it more efficient to review them all at one go rather than one at a 
time.  In this case it also happened to be easier for me to generate and 
perhaps I'm biased by that, but there it is.

More generally, I would rather avoid the bureaucratic overhead of 
splitting patches unless there's a significant win in doing so.  Many 
patches that I write could technically be split into dozens of niggling 
little independent changes, but the overall utility of doing it that way 
would be negative -- certainly for me, and I expect even when reviewer 
labor is taken into account.

While we're on the subject: my apologies for the two Turks & Caicos 
patches proposed here:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2014-August/021471.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2014-August/021471.html

These should have been one patch, but I didn't notice the possible 
simplification in the latter patch until the first one was already 
published.  Arguably the recent proposed changes to zic.c and zdump.c

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2014-August/021467.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2014-August/021469.html

should have been one patch too, but that's a closer call.


More information about the tz mailing list