So that they can be reviewed separately. In my experience I often have one piece that is straightforward and uncontroversial, while the other part requires more though. This helps focus the reviewer's attention without getting bogged down in the irrelevant details.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the reasoning behind that? I think it makes sense for it to be two > commits, but there wasn't any more discussion once we figured out how to > solve the problem that motivated the new method. I could have added another > JIRA, but what would have been the value of it? > > rb > > > On 05/12/2015 03:22 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > >> 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. >>> >>> >> > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc. >
