Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Yea, that was a problem that is now fixed. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
