On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 05:41:33PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote: > I think this sort of churn is an inevitable part of our recent > spring cleaning mood).
Precisely. > Forgive me for indulging in bikeshed speculation, but does anybody have > an idea what the wisest practices are for dealing with this situation? > On the one hand, having too big a patch introduces dependencies that > could be easily avoided otherwise. On the other hand, having lots of > little tweak patches clutters up the history a bit. I think I lean > towards the erring on the messy history side of things, but if somebody > has the absolute right answer, I will listen :-) Well really, I think the problem was that the sprinting essentially crashed our review-and-apply process. I expect that normally I would not merge two branches with 50 and 90 unique patches respectively, so the "nightmare" aspect wouldn't have been an issue. > (There are also compromises like doing them in > packets, for example, doing all the Repository modules separately from > the Patch modules) Good idea; I wish I had thought of it. It probably didn't occur to me because what I did was generate a list of .lhs files, sorted by the number of lines that were literate, not blank, and not comments -- and then deliterate those files where n was less than 10. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
