From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Y0bQV-0001SB-6O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:35:27 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Y0bQU-00006S-4u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:35:27 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hl2so6507937igb.4 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:35:20 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=nHaMilYhBjEPlfN/KuUnknFb/Up2iZRKHKWiJFETfbw=; b=iyQ3k0BD26syU2CUAlZ7Bt7ISnFGESda411MksDCTTBKRFAojrwyCISXFX4CXAK84F 4gkWS5r7fMNSIPQS+raFFQqp2KSiK6SbzfMs+LWI1AZsJWMJPifJ2IzhG0Ptz7qXqTLz ME9LS+T5jUSMAAL3OVohcTAFJ5bGeJkUVsw70hvXjWkjNrkvqFXBFIwY0yRn8YHXeLek uoSfvRKEi8PNhlChjkmDzp7h084PwiTxKJy8mq5OetJ+yzfwyXzlKmOoIjeB/H84br9j PxLFck7pMqfGYqHl+R5IbIEfr+0I412hEa62TyxZ2wVdx5Lrwti+wUcN5YHwmlHbxL+Q JBrw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkc8aOIvWf9tnAutG2C4FlsU3h4waZf7xotOa8rMFVKUJIE2OROtzpb5jZpIoHyyrJm9/x1 X-Received: by 10.50.143.37 with SMTP id sb5mr19203924igb.33.1418672120835; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:35:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.135.76 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:35:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20141215124730.GA8321@savin.petertodd.org> From: Jeff Garzik Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:35:00 -0500 Message-ID: To: Cory Fields Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135fe4ed0ecde050a46572b X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Y0bQU-00006S-4u Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Recent EvalScript() changes mean CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can't be merged X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:35:27 -0000 --001a1135fe4ed0ecde050a46572b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Cory Fields wrote: > That's exactly what happened during the modularization process, with > the exception that the code movement and refactors happened in > parallel rather than in series. But they _were_ done in separate > logical chunks for the sake of easier review. > "That's exactly what was done except it wasn't" Yes, in micro, at the pull request level, this happened * Code movement * Refactor At a macro level, that cycle was repeated many times, leading to the opposite end result: a lot of tiny movement/refactor/movement/refactor producing the review and patch annoyances described. It produces a blizzard of new files and new data structures, breaking a bunch of out-of-tree patches, complicating review quite a bit. If the vast majority of code movement is up front, followed by algebraic simplifications, followed by data structure work, further patches are easy to review/apply with less impact on unrelated code. The flow of patches into the tree over time should be examined. Simply tagging patches as movement-only does not address the described problem at all. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ --001a1135fe4ed0ecde050a46572b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Cory Fields <lists@co= ryfields.com> wrote:
That's exactly what ha= ppened during the modularization process, with
the exception that the code movement and refactors happened in
parallel rather than in series. But they _were_ done in separate
logical chunks for the sake of easier review.

"That's exactly what was done except it wasn't"

Yes, in micro, at the pull request level, this happe= ned
* Code movement
* Refactor

At a macro level, that cycle was repeated many times, leading to the oppos= ite end result: =C2=A0a lot of tiny movement/refactor/movement/refactor pro= ducing the review and patch annoyances described.

= It produces a blizzard of new files and new data structures, breaking a bun= ch of out-of-tree patches, complicating review quite a bit.=C2=A0 If the va= st majority of code movement is up front, followed by algebraic simplificat= ions, followed by data structure work, further patches are easy to review/a= pply with less impact on unrelated code.

The flow = of patches into the tree over time should be examined.=C2=A0 Simply tagging= patches as movement-only does not address the described problem at all.

--
Jeff GarzikBitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://bitp= ay.com/
--001a1135fe4ed0ecde050a46572b--