On 11/09/2007, at 9:12 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
Richard Levitte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:22:43 +0200, "Julio M. Merino Vidal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
jmmv84> Using plain text messages will make one think twice before
jmmv84> doing that, because he'll have to explain *why* he is
jmmv84> committing that at once.
I totally agree with that. There are numerous messages saying that
the programmer fiddle with this and that function, created a new one,
removed an old one, but NOT ONE WORD about the overall change, its
intention or its reasons. Basically, that makes for crap
documentation.
On the other hand, that is the way we typically work. I often notice
"little things" while I'm working on one "big thing". Would it be
better to _not_ fix them? Or do one commit for each little thing?
Depends upon the policy of the project, but yeah "commit one for each
little thing" is common. Commits are cheap, and if you ever have to
revert a commit, having all the non-associated changes in different
commits is really useful.
Will :-}
_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
