On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 5:29 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > > > I noticed that some of my last changes to TestClusterDumper, for > > example, were reversed in a subsequent change. I don't mind, they were > > largely cosmetic, to fix little checkstyle warnings. Not sure if that > > was on purpose or an accidental artifact of the merge. But I wonder if > > people are finding it hard to merge such changes and if so are people > > comfortable asking to keep 'hands off' certain sections for a limited > > time when it's actively being worked on? (We should be able to do > > this, informally, without resorting to locking or anything.) > > This kind of stuff is generally why many projects either forgo cosmetic > changes or make them automatic via SVN hooks or something similar. Large > cosmetic changes often make it next to impossible to apply patches w/o a lot > of work that were submitted previously, thus leaving you as the committer to > then go pester the original contributor to update to trunk instead of you > just being able to apply the fix. > > An alternative might be to apply all cosmetic changes at release time, > after code freeze and just make reasonable efforts in the interim, but > nothing sweeping. > I don't think that we are quite ready for that, but it is possible that we can start it after 0.4.
