Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On 2012.7.28 12:30 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>> Since this part of the series is not tested with SVN 1.7, this is
>> basically adding dead code, right?  That could be avoided by
>> reordering the changes to keep "canonicalize_url" as-is until later in
>> the series when the switchover is safe.
> I would suggest that worrying whether a few lines of code are introduced now
> or 10 patches later in the same branch which is all going to be merged in one
> go (and retesting the patches after it) is not the most important thing.  The
> code needs humans looking over it and deciding if canonicalizations were
> missed or applied inappropriately.  Or hey, work on that path and url object
> idea that makes a lot of real code mess go away.

In that case they should be one patch, I'd think.

The advantage of introducing changes gradually is that (1) the changes
can be examined and tested one at a time, and (2) if later a change
proves to be problematic, it can be isolated, understood, and fixed
more easily.  The strategy you are suggesting would have neither of
those advantages.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to