Re: GNU ChangeLogs, commit logs and commits
Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
> ]] Guillem Jover
>
> | * Small logical unit commits (if it cannot be described fully in the
> | short summary, then there's probably too many changes):
> | - Others do not get put off by monster commits, or trying to mentally
> | untangle the unrelated changes in their minds.
> | - Makes it easier to verify for correctness, avoid regressions, etc.
> | - Makes it easier to revert or cherry-pick if needed.
>
> As buxy pointed out: how do you think we should do this wrt larger
> features? In the past, you've wanted a squashed commit, is this still
> wanted?
IMO for bigger features it makes more sense a complete commit; obviously
if you're doing changes in previous code, that will be used later by the
feature and doesn't "break" the code, it could be done in a small commit
and the rest into another one.
IMO an important thing to have in mind is to commit only compilable
code, to allow the usage of bisect.
My 2c
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: