>>> +1, but I'd rather than git rm port.rb than fix anything in it. I >>> thought I'd actually already done that. :/ >> >> *smile* I considered that, but it seemed beyond the scope of this >> ticket. > > I haven't replied to your previous response to me, but to be clear - > the policy is not to mix this kind of change into a single *commit*, > not a commit series. > > The 'fix it when you see it' policy should still apply, just try to > keep it to a separate commit, even if it's small.
Yeah, I know. My coefficient of curmudgeonosity is abnormally high the past 20 hours or so. My frustration is that when I wind up making cleanups in the process of finding the fix and it takes much longer than I felt like it should have I'm not relishing the task of remaking them all to sort out which is which. Doing them as independent micro-commits and sorting before squashing is a nightmare if the affected lines overlap. The easiest is generally to reintroduce the bug in the cleaned up version, make that a commit, and then take it out again for the second commit. But it still seems onerous when I'm grumpy (normally I'd just suck it up & deal). > I find it quite hard to follow a development chain when commits have > multiple intents included. I know the feeling. That's how I sometimes feel looking at the net result of several thousand independent commits with wildly different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) intents, all applied on top of each other. -- Markus -- 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.
