Michal Terepeta <michal.terep...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 AM Jan Stolarek <jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl> > wrote: > >> Second question: how could we merge this? (...) >> I'm not sure if I understand. The end result after merging will be exactly >> the same, right? Are >> you asking for advice what is the best way of doing this from a technical >> point if view? I would >> simply edit the existing module. Introducing a temporary second module >> seems like unnecessary >> extra work and perhaps complicating the patch review. >> > > Yes, the end result would be the same - I'm merely asking what would be > preferred by GHC devs (i.e., I don't know how fine grained patches to GHC > usually are). > It varies quite wildly. In general I would prefer fine-grained patches (but of course atomic) over coarse patches as they are easier to understand during review and after merge. Moreover, it's generally much easier to squash together patches that are too fine-grained than it is to split up a large patch, so I generally err on the side of finer rather than coarser during development.
Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
