Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > 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.
Where is all this hostility coming from? I sent a simple message, saying it should be split(not must). You responded that it didn't need to be, so I assumed that you hadn't seen any of my other emails about this subject in the past(entirely possible, we are all busy, and may not read everything). So, I happily repeated myself(I have no problem doing that). You then respond with this hostile email. I see what I think are 2 separate changes in a single commit. That part was obvious from the initial email I sent. If they weren't meant to be split, then explain why. Again, it's obvious I didn't see why they could be kept together. It was evident that I didn't see it, otherwise, I wouldn't have sent that first email. I've never said that this was a golden rule. I've just explained countless times why it is better to keep things separate. Others have assumed that it has become a stick to beat people over the head with.
