On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:46:19 +0100, Pieter Praet <pie...@praet.org> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:23:40 +0000, David Edmondson <d...@dme.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:14:45 -0400, David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> wrote: > > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:55:22 +0200, Jani Nikula <j...@nikula.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 28, 2012 2:41 PM, "David Bremner" <da...@tethera.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Sometimes someone (Dmitry?) sent patches that separated a small > > > > functional > > > > change, and the big non-functional indentation change it caused, > > > > separately. Would you prefer (or tolerate ;) that style? > > > > > > Hmm, that might be nicer, I'm not 100% sure. > > > > > > I wouldn't say it's mandatory for a patch like this (and I'd say other > > > peoples views on what's easy to review are at least as important as mine > > > here). > > > > Each patch should be valid in the repository without any following > > patches (preceding are obviously okay). Incorrect indentation would > > disqualify a patch from being 'valid', so it shouldn't be accepted. > > +1. > > Indentation corrections should always be part of the same patch as > the change(s) that invalidated the indentation in the first place. > > Spotting the *actual* (non-indentation) changes is a non-issue > when using `diff-refine-hunk' (or a wrapper thereof [1]). >
Must... resist... getting... into... this... _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
