Adam Heath wrote: > 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.
I also took time out of my schedule to read the commit message. It's good when this happens. More eyes, etc. > >
