> On 28 Mar 2018, at 18:46, Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:06:19PM +0200, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
>>> If my task is to "move version check to the agent", do I _have_ to change
>>> the semantics of the version check? No.
>>
>> Of course you have to. There is no “PluginVersionIsCompatible”
>> anymore, etc, so the version number semantics have changed whether you
>> like it or not. You may artificially try to make the new version
>> number look like the old one, and I would have if there wasn’t another
>> problem with that numbering.
>
> Yes, "another problem", which is why it's much better if we split them...
> https://www.berrange.com/posts/2012/06/27/thoughts-on-improving-openstack-git-commit-practicehistory/
Which I will quote, then:
• Mixing two unrelated functional changes. Again the reviewer will find
it harder to identify flaws if two unrelated changes are mixed together. If it
becomes necessary to later revert a broken commit the two unrelated changes
will need to be untangled, with further risk of bug creation.
I underline “unrelated”. I have proven that the changes were unrelated, and so
did your own attempt at splitting, which require confusing and/or
bug-introducing changes to the same piece of code.
>
> This also makes the review process more complicated, as one has to
> figure out what part of the patch is meant to achieve what. In this
> case, I'd be fine ACK'ing the first 2 changes, but I haven't given much
> thought regarding the versioning yet.
Maybe you should give it some thought then, instead of immediately jumping to
conclusions and demanding that the patch be split.
Thanks
Christophe
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
