On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Lubos Kosco <lubos.ko...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Just to set things straight ... > this isn't a talk about nitpicking , it's a talk about avoiding regressions > > + make the life easier for people reviewing and applying patches. more inline later down.. On 22.2.2012 15:12, Jens Elkner wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:45:32AM +0100, Trond Norbye wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Jens Elkner >>> >>> <[1]jel+openg...@cs.uni-**magdeburg.de<jel%2bopeng...@cs.uni-magdeburg.de>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Ehmm, I think, there's not really something to split/doesn't make >>> sense. >>> >>> So you think a changeset that claims to improve logging should contain >>> reformatting of code completely unrelated to the logging change >>> belongs in >>> the same changset and it doesn't make sense to split that into two >>> different >>> changesets? >>> >> Not really (but doesn't hurt) and yes. >> > It is, it increase the chance for a merge conflict. > What I think is, it is just a huge waste of time to rollback all changes >> and painfully re-merge stuff, just because one discovered, that a >> autosave function or shortcut just did some MINOR reformatting. That's >> IMHO really unproductive and I actually have no time for such nitpicking. >> >> If you think, inappropriate formatting slipped through, just hit Ndd or >> whatever your favorite editor provides and you'r done. No need to waste >> anyones time ... >> > It is the person who create such patches who are wasting other peoples time. The "gatekeepers" time is _just as valuable_ as your time, and expecting them to fix up your changesets before they can be applied is really disrespectful of _their_ time. Trond
_______________________________________________ opengrok-discuss mailing list opengrok-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opengrok-discuss
