Ryan, I think that absolutely should have been two issues. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/11/2015 02:53 PM, Sean Busbey wrote: > >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I disagree. I think we all agree there's value to having separate >>> commits, >>> but logical breakdown of a task often goes into detail that, when >>> mirrored >>> into JIRA without reason, is just busy work. >>> >>> >> >> What value does an issue provide if there is no discussion and it is just >>> a box to tick when working on another issue? >>> >>> rb >>> >>> >>> >> I don't think we all agree there's value to having separate commits. The >> time when I think it's valuable is precisely when the sub-tasks are >> actually something that might benefit from additional discussion or >> reviews >> on jira. >> > > I guess that explains the difference in opinion then. I think that there > are cases where separating work across commits can make maintenance easier. > > For example, I just had a case in Parquet where I extended an existing API > and added tests for a new method, then moved other parts of the codebase to > the new version to fix a performance regression. I think that logical > division makes sense, but I don't see value in separating them into two > issues. > > rb > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc. >
