Edgar E. Iglesias writes: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:22:51AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Edgar E. Iglesias writes: >> >> >> Ahh my confusion from earlier is now clear. Perhaps the two commits >> should be merged? > > Hi, > > The point is to have a non-functional diff and then incrementally add > the function to easy bisectability if something breaks. I don't > have a very strong opinion though, so if people insist I can squash.
Having each commit point be buildable and testable is certainly a worthwhile goal from a bisect point of view. But for a simple no-op diff (i.e. functionaly identical, just moving a few bits around) which will then get updated with functional changes there is an argument to squash the two together. I like this patch series because the individual patches are narrow in scope and not too big hence easier to review. I don't think squashing some of non-function + functional diffs together detracts from that nobel goal. As you say it's a judgement call. -- Alex Bennée
