On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:09:46PM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday 28 July 2014 08:06:58 Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > I don’t have a firm rule for that. > > I usually ask that commits don’t break the build (because that makes > > bisecting so much more painful). I don’t like it when people send me > > sequences like this: > > > > A > > B > > revert A > > C > > > > (just rebase and drop A and revertA) > > > > Or if two consecutive commits are > > > > New code plus debug output > > Remove debug output > > > > (just rebase and squash them together) > > It's more like: > > Add some code > Add some more code related to the first > Do something else > Replace constants in commits #1 and 2 with enums > > It reads as a train of thought too: Josh started doing something one way and > then realised he needed to refactor in order to be more flexible for > different > dive computers.
That seems perfectly valid to me. > > But especially in longer series it seems to make little sense to try and > > make them look perfect. Basically apply good taste and do what seems right. > > If I hate it, I’ll yell :-) > > Understood. > > > And yes, I would love a copy of the repository where you have signed off the > > commits that you have reviewed, Thiago. This will document that this was > > GSOC work where a mentor spent the time and effort to review the code > > before I pulled it. > > Will do and will try to squash things together where it makes sense. Thanks > By the way, I also told Josh that I would count the code he developed for > libdivecomputer as part of his GSoC project, though I haven't seen any yet. Yes, Jef and I had discussed that briefly - this only seems to make sense as the two projects are very closely related and Josh's project kind of straddles the border of both. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
