db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Knut Anders Hatlen <Knut.Hat...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-125) Network Server can send DSS greater than 32K to client, which breaks DRDA protocol.
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:36:12 GMT
Bryan Pendleton <bpendleton@amberpoint.com> writes:

> Army wrote:
>> Well I'm a day late, but I've finished my review of the patch...
>
> Hi Army,
>
> Thank you very much for the careful review and the helpful suggestions.
> There were a number of points in your message, many of which I will
> address when I re-submit the patch proposal, but there were several
> points which are large enough that I'd like to address them specifically
> in this message.
>
> ---------------
>
> 1) Should this be one patch or several? It is indeed awkward to
> bundle all these changes together, and they aren't all interdependent.
> For example, DERBY-170 can be easily broken out. Also, the changes to
> DDMWriter.finalizeDSSLength() that I propose for DERBY-125 can certainly
> be separated from the "offset API" changes that I propose for DERBY-491 and
> DERBY-492. I'd like to hear the opinions of others on the list about whether
> to break this patch up or not.

If some of the issues are completely independent, I think you should
put those in separate patches. This will make it easier for others to
understand your changes, as they can concentrate on one issue at a
time. If the changes are interdependent or touch the same parts of the
code, I think it is better to submit one patch than to instruct the
committer/reviewers to apply patch A, B, C and D in one particular
order.

Separate patches for DERBY-170 and DERBY-125 and one patch for
DERBY-491 and DERBY-492 sounds like a good idea. That is, if it's not
too much work.

-- 
Knut Anders


Mime
View raw message