On segunda-feira, 2 de setembro de 2013 18:46:37, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > That defines what atomic is. It doesn't say that the commit must compile > > and pass all tests if the rest of the commits in a topic are ignored. > > > > > > in fact, point 4 of the commit policy is pretty clear on that matter. it > is absurd to remove function (specific to the scope of the commit) from > the definition of atomicity. > also, the policy does not know a "topic" concept, for good reasons. you > cannot use topics (or branches which you intend to merge, for that > matter) as an excuse for violating the policy. > at the very most you can temporarily introduce chunks of dead code if it > does not affect the function of configurations which are expected to > work at all times. but even that is a stretch and should be done only > for big changes.
We established that I disagree with those definitions in a previous discussion on this topic. That's why I was specific in my reply. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
