On 1/4/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Danny, unfortunately we started the issues together because they are really tightly related.
That's fine, if that's what you already did then it is done. I know how hard it can be, but sometimes you can just commit much more often to get a clearer trail when making big refactorings like this.
I never intended to obfuscate what we did on that branch. The sandbox is there from only 10 days: we probably would have written something in the next weeks if not queried before. 10 days in this project are almost an "instant".
I understand, and its OK to do that, you just need to explain it to us now and again.
I'm happy to reply to questions and to hear alternative opinions. I just wanted to not repeat past error to write long proposal before working on the issue and to understand after few weeks that the proposal was not really implementable because of concrete issues.
A good idea, it is easier to write the proposal if you have some examples too.
I consider SVN diffs and code as like as english mailing list messages for a discussion.
I think others would consider that the commit messages are less than that, they are informative but do not constitute a discussion. Sometimes (not all of the time) it helps to send a quick summary of what the commits were about, what your goal was and why you think the change is the best way to achieve it.
For a developer a diff is one of the most concrete discussion to put on the table: this decrease a lot the 'I don't mean what do you mean with xxxxxxx, can you elaborate?'.
diffs are certainly usefull and avoid misunderstanding, but they don't tell us why you made the chioces you made. Anyway, I'm happy with the way you're doing this, it is a different way and I hope it helps us with the communication problems we have had. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
