Jan Stolarek <jan.stola...@p.lodz.pl> writes: >> I don't entirely agree. I personally find it very hard to review large >> patches as the amount of mental context generally seems to grow >> super-linearly in the amount of code touched. Moreover, I think it's >> important to remember that the need to read patches does not vanish the >> moment the patch is committed. To the contrary, review is merely the >> first of many instances in which a patch will be read. Other instances >> include, > > I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say. I don't see it as > contradicting in any way > principles that I outlined. It's just that sometimes doing a single logical > change to the code > requires a large patch and breaking it artificially into smaller patches > might actually make > matters worse. I believe this would be the case for this scenario. And > honestly speaking I don't > think that the patch here will be very big. But like you say, there's a > compromise to be struck. > Ahh, it looks like I was probably reading more into what you wrote than you intended; my apologies!
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
