On 15 Feb 2010, at 11:38 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
I think the point was, all the above happened after you'd committed. Maybe it would've been a good idea to discuss it first?
To me, no, but not because I disagree with you, but rather because every time we make a commit we make a call: is this small enough to warrant commit-then-review, or is it big enough to warrant review-then- commit? Sometimes, it is borderline, and I made the call this time round to commit-then-review.
How big does a patch need to be before needing mention in the docs? Which changes are major enough to justify an entry in CHANGES and which are minor enough not to matter? What constitutes a bugfix, and what constitutes a new feature? Sometimes these are clear, but sometimes these are not, and people will not always agree. And when people don't agree, being tactful and diplomatic goes a long way.
Regards, Graham --
