Side thought if anyone feels like having an opinion. Which is better?
a) One big commit, merging the branch in in one go (the usual approach). b) One commit per file, with the commit log including all of the change history of the file while it was on the branch; except for a few global commits that wouldn't add any value. One potential bad for b) would be if files were renamed, but that didn't notably happen in this case. It seems a shame to lose history like: "r555925 | skestle | 2007-07-13 03:39:24 -0700 (Fri, 13 Jul 2007) | 2 lines Added Edwin Tellman's patch for COLLECTIONS-243. It all seems pretty reasonable, and it should all be checked again as the project is worked through" so I'm willing to give scripting b) a shot. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
