Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:38:41 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: ceri@freebsd.org Subject: Re: To PR Senders Message-ID: <20040821183841.GA66189@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <20040821165030.GA20785@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20040820133029.GE63041@abigail.blackend.org> <20040820103306.5f0ffb6f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20040820205835.GH63041@abigail.blackend.org> <20040820222329.GA29749@gothmog.gr> <20040821165030.GA20785@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-08-21 09:50, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 01:23:29AM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > If you really *do* need a recommendation for a size I think that 50k is > > about the size that things would probably start getting seriously annoying > > for dialup users. Yeah, if a size must be explicitly specified 50k is ok. > > FYI, bde want's patches at least up to 100K, probably somewhat larger to > be inlined. I'd personally, say that whatever he says is definitive (at > least on the soruce says). Well, yes. Something near 50-100 KB is ok. Not much larger though. Diff output can get big even for relatively simple changes, if they're mechanically applied to lots of files. If Bruce thinks that 100 KB is a typical size of a "maximally acceptable inline patch", then he's probably right and said that having in mind a lot more of patches than me. Now, to get this topic resolved or at least closer to being resolved... do we need to update the problem-reports related documentation to include a suggestion that ``anything larger than 100 KB is probably too big for inline inclusion, but less than 100 KB is usually ok?'' - Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040821183841.GA66189>