On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 05:44:07PM +0200, ext Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:45:37 +0300 > > From: Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:09:45PM +0200, ext Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > > No function changes. > > > > > > Note that automake generates a wrapper script if libpciaccess > > > is not installed at configuration time, which is the most common case. > > > > > > If it is installed at configuration time, you get an executable. > > > > > > The makefile build order ensures the lib is build before scanpci. > > > > > > The man page is moved to the man directory, as usual. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> > > > > I think your changes are nice, but I'd prefer to see those split up > > in two patches instead: one to remove the wrapper script, using a > > proper makefile and another to move code around, creating scanpci/ > > directory and man/ > > What's the point? Is there really a chance you want to backout a > single one of the three diffs you suggest?
"A commit should contain exactly one logical change. A logical change includes adding a new feature, fixing a specific bug, etc. If it's not possible to describe the high level change in a few words, it is most likely too complex for a single commit. The diff itself should be as concise as reasonably possibly and it's almost always better to err on the side of too many patches than too few. As a rule of thumb, given only the commit message, another developer should be able to implement the same patch in a reasonable amount of time." - from http://who-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html. Tiago _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
