On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 03:27:25 -0800, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Whew, these patches reduce the number of .lhs files that aren't really
> .lhs files -- they just have a few \end{code}^J^J\begin{code}
> sequences.Great! > PS: I actually did this work a fortnight ago, as a single patch, but > merging was so nightmarish that I re-did the work against unstable and > recorded patches per-file. Ok, I'm going to trickle these in, mostly because I'm not sure how to deal with the situation of a lot of tiny changes that touch a lot of tiny files (I think this sort of churn is an inevitable part of our recent spring cleaning mood). 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 :-) (There are also compromises like doing them in packets, for example, doing all the Repository modules separately from the Patch modules) -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
