David E Jones wrote: > On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 4/12/2009, at 1:05 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> If you want to review these commits why not check them in the birt >>> branch...there they are separated. >> I'm not so concerned about myself but more for others and in particular >> people looking at the commit history in the future. >> The integration and the examples are completely different subject matters >> are should be treated as such when committing to the trunk regardless of how >> they've been committed to the branch. > > How would one separate them when committing them to the trunk? > > Typically merging a branch with the trunk involves a single commit in order > to keep it simple. It doesn't have to be that way, but it nice to simply say > branch rev X was merged into the trunk at trunk rev Y.
You may not have noticed, but I've done several bulk commits with git+svn. I'll do a whole bunch of work, then when everything is finished, and I've doing various testing at each individual point in the chain, I'll flood svn with several commits back to back. You'll see all the individual, *small* changes, as I first fix bugs, rename methods, make things private from public, then finally remove whole swaths of code. Look at the UtilCache stuff I did recently, where I made the constructor(s) private.
