I believe patches shouldn't be so long lived, myself. I think just before a release is a valid time for this.
But yeah, that we even observe unconventional code so much perhaps points instead to a failure in coordinating and following standards. I feel strongly about code hygiene as a sort of 'broken windows'-style means of raising the bar in higher level concerns like API design. Google was more militant than I about this and just for the culture it created it was worth it. On Feb 13, 2010 11:24 PM, "Jake Mannix" <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry about that Jake, ... I guess... but it may come a time in the future when "we have to do this", and I would advocate *not* doing it, actually. It just clutters the subversion history, and can usually be adequately dealt with by accumulating these stylistic fixes over time, IMO. > Robin > PS: I volunteer to help you in getting all the conflicts resolved and > checking it in(O... Thanks, but it's straightforward enough for me to do a whole bunch of "svn merge --dry-run -r BASE:HEAD ." and then working my way through various subdirectories. It's just extra work. I'll try to just get in the habit of checking in my minor changes more frequently so I don't run into this more. -jake
