| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alexis Ballier posted on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:40:33 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > "Having functional changes mixed with whitespace/cosmetics in a single |
| 7 |
> > commit makes it hard to read and understand." |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> >> Also, in this case I see only one extra hunk. |
| 10 |
> >> But once we have proper tools (like git) we can revisit this. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I don't see how git helps. You'll have to commit twice then push, vs |
| 13 |
> > commit twice with cvs. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> But git commits are quite lightweight, while as someone already pointed |
| 16 |
> out, cvs commits, if done properly with repoman, are anything but. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So at least in the sense that it'll be less hassle, two git commits |
| 19 |
> followed by a push should be much easier than two repoman and cvs commits. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Just to make it clear -- there are four CVS commits. Ebuild commit |
| 22 |
followed by GPG-signed Manifest commit. Hopefully the developer has |
| 23 |
persistent SSH connections set up. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Michał Górny |
Archives