On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 11:32 -0500, Ian wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> > wrote: > > > > I agree with Bombe that it’s not nice to lose the history, but with > > git that’s the best we can do. It’s a limitation of the tool. > > > > It's not a limitation of the tool, it's a limitation created by your desire > to misuse the tool. > > Individual commits should not be reviewed, pull requests should. I'm > really surprised that people are so resistant to this, this is widely > accepted practice. It certainly works very well for my team (with a larger > codebase than Freenet). We've never had any of the problems you guys seem > to be so concerned about. > > If the pull request is too big to be reviewed, then it should have been > broken into small pull requests. Typically a pull request should represent > *at > most* 4 days worth of work. >
This is what has been happening in practice. Most of the volunteers' contributions are less than 4 days worth of work. In fact, I can't remember when anyone has last submitted a piece of work bigger than that. Steve, do you? The exception is the paid staff. If we change the way they work going forward there's no problem to be solved :) Florent
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
