On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:07:04AM -0800, MattyJ wrote:
Philosophically, that seems fine to me. I'd rather check my own crummy ideas in separately from my reviewers so it's clear in the history that a review took place, and changes occurred because of them. I check my work in frequently, all day long. I'd rather not hold a file open for a few days until someone else looks at it. But I'm overly paranoid about that kinda thing.
I think this is a great thing. But, you should be doing that on a branch so that the other developers don't grind to a halt when your little checkins break the tip. My experience with perforce (or CVS) is that makes branches difficult enough that most people don't use them, and either don't check in very often, or the tip spends most of its time broken. Very lightweight and private branches to me are the biggest win of the distributed type of systems (git, mercurial, darcs, monotone, etc). I like being able to hack up things on my own branch until it looks like what I want to push out. Another way to think of it: CVS, SVN or perforce lets the developer work on a set of changes to files that they can then push out as a group. The distributed ones just extend this a bit further in that the developer can work on a list of changes that get pushed as a group. Dave -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
