On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:42:04 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 11:37:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On segunda-feira, 2 de setembro de 2013 18:46:37, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > 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. > > > > We established that I disagree with those definitions in a previous > > discussion on this topic. > > you did, however, make no effort to substantiate your position. > an argument against your interpretation is for example bisectability. > also, it's just plain illogical to tear apart an allegedly "too complex" > change, because then assessing the pieces requires adding "external" > context. which is just a less handy way to review one big change.
I agree with ossi here. Thanks, -- Join us in October at Qt Developer Days 2013 - https://devdays.kdab.com Stephen Kelly <[email protected]> | Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company www.kdab.com || Germany +49-30-521325470 || Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-Independent Software Solutions
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
