On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On Mar 19, 2010, at 6:43 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> [email protected] wrote: >>>> Author: jacopoc >>>> Date: Fri Mar 19 17:23:15 2010 >>>> New Revision: 925342 >>>> >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=925342&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> Improved search capabilities of the work effort calendar screens; >>>> converted ftl template to form widget. >>> This should have been 2 commits, they aren't related. >>> >> >> I enhanced the search features by replacing the existing ftl forms (one for >> each search field) with *one* single widget form: in this way searches can >> be done with multiple constraints. >> Are you saying that instead I should have: >> >> 1) converted the ftl forms into widget forms in order to preserve the >> original limitations >> 2) aggregate the widget forms into one widget form in order to implement the >> new feature >> >> ? >> >> This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Or maybe it is a new >> *policy*? > > I also only said should, not must. Those are terms I've been familiar > with because of the Debian Policy Manual; they based those terms on > what RFC stuff does.
You don't need to explain to me the advantages of the basic strategy (that is *not* a policy) of doing atomic and self contained commits, whenever possible. I understand it and, as you will confirm, I use it. But in this context it doesn't apply at all. I am wasting your time at explaining this clearly evident fact to you. Adam, if you are fair you will admit that your comment to my commit was wrong, that's it. And for the future, if you will see (or you will think to see) that one of my commit doesn't respect this golden rule, since you know that I am aware of the rule, then don't waste your time warning me; it will simply mean that I have a good reason for not respecting the best practice in that commit. Jacopo
