There are lots of different cases here, as well as existing norms, and also preferences.
I would mention that in some cases, I would prefer to accept the commit as is, and then perform minor refactoring, such as changing a name, fixing a typo, or rearranging the code. Not only does that clearly separate authorship, but it would also encourage those changes to be reviewed by someone other than that author. Disclaimer: As someone who has carefully reviewed many hundreds (thousands?) of commits, I am a big fan of smaller commits, or even micro commits. I would much rather review 10 trivial changes than one monolithic commit that does 10 different things. Kevin Smith Agile Coach, Wikimedia Foundation On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://secure.phabricator.com/T10584#164843 to me sounds like a big pile > of logical fallacies. > > Nemo > > > _______________________________________________ > teampractices mailing list > teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices >
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
