Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Michael G Schwern wrote: >> I would suggest that worrying whether a few lines of code are introduced now >> or 10 patches later in the same branch which is all going to be merged in one >> go (and retesting the patches after it) is not the most important thing. [...] > In that case they should be one patch, I'd think. > > The advantage of introducing changes gradually is that (1) the changes > can be examined and tested one at a time, and (2) if later a change > proves to be problematic, it can be isolated, understood, and fixed > more easily. The strategy you are suggesting would have neither of > those advantages.
(To avoid confusion: by "The strategy you are suggesting" I mean introducing dead code first and activating it later, not the path and url object idea. The path and url object approach would be very nice. :)) Sorry for the lack of clarity. Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
