On May 28, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Steven Jenkins wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Luke Kanies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > ... >> >> >> As was pointed out to me, this patch contains lots of whitespace >> patches, which breaks one of the rules we've added (no trivial >> changes >> included in patches). >> >> I agree with this rule in principle, but... I think I would tend just >> not to fix this kind of problem if I had to do it as part of a >> different patch set. >> >> How hard and fast should this rule be? Should I redo these patches >> with no whitespace changes, or at least not do this again? >> > > The rule should be pretty hard and fast, as mixing changes makes it > much more difficult to follow a bug back to where it was introduced, > which is important in 'fixing a fix'. Trivial changes should go into > their own patch and be labelled appropriately (e.g., 'whitespace > changes only', 'spelling corrections only'), etc, so that forensic bug > tracking can be done more easily. > > My personal take would be 'at least not do this again'.
That seems reasonable, I guess. In general, I'd say this would be more of a guideline than a rule -- don't do it, but we won't shoot you if you do. -- God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages. -- Jacques Deval --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
