On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 09:57:15AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 17.43.55, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > this is a self-contradicting interpretation. a minimal fully functional
> > change is not splittable (i.e., it's atomic). therefore no part of that
> > change can legally exist on its own (i.e., satisfy the criterion of
> > being atomic), as otherwise the complete change would not be atomic to
> > start with.
>
> Again, it's a question of how you define "atomic". I don't include the
> criterion of being testable.
>
this makes no sense, because then you have no tangible definition of
atomicity at all. "whatever i had done at this time" does not qualify -
your personal history of changes is of no concern. in fact, it's even
counterproductive, because it is suggestive and may lead the reviewer to
committing the same mistakes you did.
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
