On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Murray Cumming <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 22:32 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: >> So maybe we should just drop the old habit of creating large self >> contained commits which require exhaustive ChangeLog entries: Micro >> patches that focus on just one change are much easier to review. > > But shouldn't interdependent changes be reviewed together? I generally > find that these many mini-commits make it hard for me to see the big > picture. I tend to wish that the person had combined the many > local-commits into one atomic commit when pushing it to the main > repository.
If they are interdependent in the sense that they are required to make the whole aggregate change build-able, they should be squashed down to one commit before being pushed upstream/submitted. git-rebase in other projects is used for this purpose. This is largely a continuation of the "if it doesn't build, don't commit it" mentality. On the kernel, for example, patches tend to be independent in the sense that each change is atomic and would be justified on its own accord; however, a patch series tends to lean toward achieving an aggregate objective. This scenario tends to apply to implementing new features that touches many pieces. Obviously, good maintainer review of patches is the only way this kind of quality culture can be achieved. It's a social problem, not a technical one. _______________________________________________ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
