Best practices for submitting tree-wide changes

Best practices for submitting tree-wide changes

[Demi Marie Obenour]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 458 bytes --]

In some cases, the same change should be made to many parts of
the codebase.  This includes things like adding set -o pipefail to
shell scripts or moving command substitutions to their own commands.
Should one send a single patch that makes all the changes, or should
one send a bunch of tiny patches?

Preferably, the answer should be added to the documentation so people
don't need to ask again :)
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 7253 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Best practices for submitting tree-wide changes

[Alyssa Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 675 bytes --]

Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:

> In some cases, the same change should be made to many parts of
> the codebase.  This includes things like adding set -o pipefail to
> shell scripts or moving command substitutions to their own commands.
> Should one send a single patch that makes all the changes, or should
> one send a bunch of tiny patches?
>
> Preferably, the answer should be added to the documentation so people
> don't need to ask again :)

A single patch with no component prefix in the subject line is fine.

Documentation doesn't currently have a good place for this sort of thing
but I'll note the request for when we restructure it next year.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]