On Oct 13, 2013, at 6:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > As I reviewed the Slice <Changes> related to Case 4993, I notice the relevant > part was only a single method, but also included were several more unrelated > modifications with zero-sum refactorings. eg, from... > position: aPoint > super position: aPoint. > self viewBox ifNotNil: [self viewBox: (aPoint extent: self viewBox extent)]. > > to... > position: aPoint > super position: aPoint. > self viewBox ifNotNil: [:viewBox | self viewBox: (aPoint extent: viewBox > extent)]. > > which itself is cool, but my first thought was that these shouldn't have been > included in the Case 4993 Slice, but in a separate Slice for a different Case > that dealt just with those refactorings. But thinking further in general the > image I use for testing could have moved on from the image used to generate > that Slice. So maybe its not not such a problem anyhow? > Also, if the zero-sum refactoring modifications were put in their own > separate Slice, then probably the specific modifications related to the Case > would build upon that, so ultimately you end up with the same situation. > > So in short my question is, how much do you typically separate out > Case-specific modifications from incidental zero-sum refactoring made along > the way. > In theory: yes. In practice: just too much work. I often slip in small refactorings with other changes (and code deletions… nothing works less than asking "There is this obscure feature that nobody used in 20 years, can I remove it?" The answer always will be "Wow, this is cool, over my dead body!". If people would know what I removed over the years… ;-)
Marcus
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
