Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> [ about micro commits ]
> (As a side benefit, if one of my little micro-commits turns out to
> have a bug, you can easily revert *just that commit*, without having
> to manually sort out exactly which pieces related to that change.)
I don't actually have a lot of faith in such an approach. My experience
is that bugs arise from unforeseen interactions of changes, and that
"backing out just one" isn't a useful thing to do, even if none of the
later parts of the patch directly depend on it.
So, yeah, presenting a patch as a series of edits can be useful for
review purposes, but I'm not at all excited about cluttering the
long-term project history with a zillion micro-commits. One of the
things I find most annoying about reviewing the current commit history
is that Bruce has taken a micro-commit approach to managing the TODO
list --- I was seldom so happy as the day that disappeared from CVS,
because of the ensuing reduction in noise level.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
