| 1 |
On 07/06/2010 02:18 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 22:50:56 +0000 |
| 3 |
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I'm not going to delve into the details that have been addressed all |
| 6 |
>> other this thread. Instead I'll just address one small issue. |
| 7 |
>> The use of *minor* in the title of this thread and the sheer size of |
| 8 |
>> the patch attached are not compatible. Please don't label changes |
| 9 |
>> such as these as *minor* in future instances. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Another major flaw on its own is the sheer size of the patch (it hadn't |
| 12 |
> been explicitly mentioned to my knowledge). Aren't we supposed to |
| 13 |
> commit early and often in open source projects instead of dumping all |
| 14 |
> your changes on reviewers at once (first fork and later merge)? And if |
| 15 |
> you're still going to do it, a the huge patch should only be necessary |
| 16 |
> to establish a single sweeping change, not many small changes. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Indeed the patch should be splitted if you expect people to reasonably |
| 20 |
review it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Petteri |
Archives