On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:35 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> Well, it's "should", not "must" ;) >> When writing this, I had in mind that other projects have different >> workflows, where indeed people never collapse and many tiny changesets >> (which are only significant as part of a bigger work) end up in the main >> history. The point is to signal that it's not how we work. > > Having to be nitpicking here "not how you (Antoine) want us to work". > "We" aren't using mercurial long enough to make such a statement. > > I still propose to loosen this restriction, and go with that for a > while. Perhaps improve the email hook to give more condensed reports. > If people then complain about too much fine-grainedness, we could > tighten it again.
I think our experience from the sprints was enough to realise that wording couldn't realistically mean "never do micro commits". If you commit something, then notice a typo, or that you forgot to update NEWS or ACKS, then sure, go ahead and push the main commit along with any small cleanups and merges that were needed. It was more designed to say "please land big changes as a single coherent patch, not as a long series of experimentation and micro-commits". So "SHOULD" is the right word - we really do want to try to keep things to coherent patches, but will occasionally have small cleanup commits as well. That isn't really any different from the way we worked with SVN, with later commits to add NEWS entries, fix issue references, etc when the original commit missed something. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
