2012/3/27 Tim Starling <[email protected]>: > For commits with lots of files, Gerrit's diff interface is too broken > to be useful. It does not provide a compact overview of the change > which is essential for effective review. > > Luckily, there are alternatives, specifically local git clients and > gitweb. However, these don't work when git's change model is broken by > the use of git commit --amend. > > For commits with a small number of files, such changes are reviewable > by the use of the "patch history" table in the diff views. But when > there are a large number of files, it becomes difficult to find the > files which have changed, and if there are a lot of changed files, to > produce a compact combined diff. > > So if there are no objections, I'm going to change [[Git/Workflow]] to > restrict the recommended applications of "git commit --amend", and to > recommend plain "git commit" as an alternative. A plain commit seems > to work just fine. It gives you a separate commit to analyse with > Gerrit, gitweb and client-side tools, and it provides a link to the > original change in the "dependencies" section of the change page.
It sounds similar to what i said in the thread "consecutive commits in Gerrit", so i probably support it, but i don't completely understand how will it work with the `git review' command, which doesn't like multiple commits. If the documentation will explain how to use `git review' with follow up commits, it will be fine. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
