On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Alex Benn�e wrote: > > Edgar E. Iglesias writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:22:51AM +0100, Alex Benn?e 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 disagree. IMO when patches include refactoring + changes, the refactoring should be done with non functional changes (as far as possible) and then followed up with small easily reviewable functional patches. > > 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.
