On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 16:08 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > 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.
I guess this kind of workflow just doesn't match the projects I work on, or how I work, though it seems to be very comfortable for other people. I then wish there was some way to group commits together to say "these are useful separately, but together they also achieve foo". Then I could choose to just look at the big-picture stuff. -- Murray Cumming [email protected] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
