On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:04:26 -0500 Dennis Reedy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 2010, at 200PM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote: > > > On 12/09/2010 06:37 PM, Christopher Dolan wrote: > >> Yes, sorry, I replied to the wrong email... I meant to react to > >> the proposal of: > >> > >> - I want to make a meaningful change to Class A. > >> - Class A is badly formatted. > >> - I fix the formatting of Class A. > >> - I commit Class A. > >> - I make my meaningful change to Class A. > >> - I commit Class A. > >> > >> I think steps #3 and #4 are a bad idea. Your endorsement of that > > > > Do you object to the formatting or the intermediate commit? Do you > > think the scope of the class is too big, should it be only the > > method that is fixed? Or are you completely against reformatting? > > > > I think it is a bit too much to write 'we forbid', it is an adult > > fixing the source, for free, shouldn't we allow a bit of freedom in > > this case? > > I agree. If source is difficult to read and it can be improved by > reformatting, then why not reformat and commit. Its on an as needed > basis, after all. Reformatting could cause problem if others work on the same source file (potential large conflicts), so communication is needed then to resolve the situation. Keeping reading badly formatted sources requires mazochism :-) Zsolt
