On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 13:42 +0300, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote:
> "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 > I agree. The more code changes in the patch, the higher the likelihood of both the author and the reviewer of overlooking an issue. Just like "good programming practices", "good patching practices" is not an exact science and will always be the subject of debate.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
