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
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
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