Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:

>> 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.
> 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 avoid confusion: by "The strategy you are suggesting" I mean
introducing dead code first and activating it later, not the path and
url object idea.  The path and url object approach would be very
nice. :))

Sorry for the lack of clarity.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to