On 11-Sep-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Thanks a lot: I've investigated with the other maintainers and no > voices against your request were raised, we will be happy to > integrate your patch (and thanks for the deprecation module, which > will probably be useful also for other stuff in the future).
Great news, thank you. > Still, your patch at the moment is a bit messy and suboptimal to review. > Take for example the patch about the example > examples/debtags/tagsByRelevance; your patch first remove all the code > and then read it, probably using the right calls. As far as I can tell, that's an artefact of the way Git handles file metadata: it can't tell the difference between "file X was renamed to file Y and had some changes" and "file X lost all 100 lines and file Y gained all 100 very similar lines". I may be wrong on this (I'm not an expert at using Git) but Git, as far as I can tell, is just representing the change as best it can. You'll notice that Git has produced more readable output for the other method-renaming patch (the one that changes many more files). > Can you please: > - provide 2 patches instead of 3: one for the deprecation module, the > other (instead of 2) for all the method renamings. In fact the patch to 'examples/debtags/tagsbyrelevance' is only separate because I missed it on the first pass. Combining the two patches won't help the readability, as it will still contain a whole lot of removed lines in one file and a whole lot of added lines in the other. I was a little dismayed to see that the project decided to move away from Bazaar, which handles this case more elegantly :-/ > - avoid stuff like the example above and keep your patches minimal. > > Once that is ready, I'll be more than happy to review, apply, and > upload. I hope you can reconsider based on the above; I don't see how to improve my patches while still using Git. -- \ “Holy rising hemlines, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
