On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you identify what the feature is when it's in 10 commits >> interspersed over 200 in the history. My claim is that you should make >> those 10 commits on top of each other without merging (unless you need >> sometIhing specific that was pushed to petsc-dev) and merge when it's >> complete. Pushing to petsc-dev should _mean_ that it's ready for review. >> This does not take more work. >> > > Again, hyperbole is not useful. This is a single commit, where I add > functionality to a few functions for a single purpose. Matt, I was referring to the general "push as checkpoint" workflow rather than that single commit with the memory leak. While I think that patch could have been split into "generalize existing functionality" followed by "add new functionality", it's a bug that could have happened to anyone and is more reliably caught by proper testing. I've given a lot of reasons why "push as checkpoint" is bad for everyone else working on the project. You have not explained how it helps so much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130203/e8dd5908/attachment.html>
