On 5/4/11 2:38 AM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 3 May 2011 18:04, Andrei Alexandrescu<[email protected]> wrote:
Second, in the (hopefully) rare cases when the trunk does break, it's not
difficult to turn the clock back to a working version. That makes the
slowdown, when it does occur, nowhere near dramatic.
Yes, but that's a general property of a version control system.
Generally speaking, breaking the trunk is not so bad, provided it gets
fixed quickly.
The person who does the merge should be responsible for reverting it,
if it breaks. Which thus far has not worked well; we've had trunk
broken
for extended periods of time (including now!)
One property that git has that probably many other VCSs don't is that
you can work on an older tree and then easily merge it with the trunk.
But I just think there's a whole class of commits where pull requests
will NEVER add value. I don't see *any* value in pull requests for
improvements to comments, fixes of internal bugs inside functions,
etc.
In such cases, pull requests are just busy work. Creating pull
requests for such things dilutes the value of the pull request system,
IMHO.
I agree with David. Would be worth thinking about the process a bit more.
It's difficult to define the "trivial" category. Again, at work we did
have the experience that something was considered trivial but caused
breakages when deployed. Anyhow, probably we're not at the size we can
afford to review each change.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
