| 1 |
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 18:00:42 +0200 |
| 2 |
Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > You should just convert the commit diff to not include space |
| 5 |
> > changes. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Tom, I don't understand what you mean here? Who should do the convert |
| 8 |
> and why? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It's a human error for both ends, it can thus be done on both sides. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Writing good code takes experience and awareness, and many if not |
| 13 |
> most are just interested in banging out something that works. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Good code ideally is tested. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> ... minimize the impact, and the best way is to ... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Depends on whose impact you minimize, s/best/alternative/. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Specifically, interactive rebase on its own or combined with |
| 22 |
> bisecting become a lot easier and quicker with clean commits. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rebasing is overkill in the Portage tree and not needed; as for bisect, |
| 25 |
it makes it worse because you introduce extra commits to bisect. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Try not to be that person, because it doesn't help anyone. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm not rooting either side, I just hate the noise that occurs when |
| 30 |
neither side takes an effort to fix it. I can tell from a private mail |
| 31 |
from one of the persons that at least one side is interested, I'm not |
| 32 |
so sure about the other side; but well, better than an endless debate. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> If something becomes easier by using a particular process or |
| 35 |
> workflow, then I think that's a good reason to do it. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
And that's why I responded, I won't respond any further to this thread. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
With kind regards, |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 43 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 46 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 47 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives