Stevie Strickland <sstri...@ccs.neu.edu> writes: > On May 17, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Michael Sperber wrote: >> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes: >>> I'm sure that those 86 commits are important for *Sam* -- but as >>> far as *I'm* concerned it's all a big blurry "stuff happened in >>> typed scheme" >> If they're truly only important to Sam, they should live in Sam's >> repository, not in everyone's. The whole point of a distributed SCM >> is that this kind of thing is actually manageable, and pretty easily >> so. > > I don't think those commits are only important for Sam, though. Sam > could indeed squash those commits all into one before pushing them to > the main repository, but then we've lost a couple of things: small > commits that are easily digestible, and the history of how Sam's work > evolved over the weeks of development he spent on it. While it's not > always necessary to perform forensics on the development history of a > piece of code, this kind of information is pretty crucial for doing > so. Also, it's easier to bisect across a lot of small changes instead > of having a single, massive change flagged as causing an error.
I didn't say they're only important to Sam - Eli said this. I only said that *if* X is about to push N (where N >> 1) changes and *X* thinks only the composition of those changes matters for everyone else, then X should push a single composed patch. I totally agree with the rest of what you said - especially "easily digestible", which the current push e-mails are not. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
