[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