[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: