1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> posted |
2 |
8b4c83ad0907222009sba2c36fu59d2caf68ebcfd95@××××××××××.com, excerpted |
3 |
below, on Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:39:00 +0530: |
4 |
|
5 |
> 2009/7/23 Sérgio Almeida: |
6 |
>> I'm still not doing any commits as uselect can still break your python |
7 |
>> environment while testing and i don't have the time to learn how to |
8 |
>> handle branches in git. |
9 |
|
10 |
> It's probably wise to commit code in small-ish (and self-containing) |
11 |
> discrete units each of which add something without breaking anything. |
12 |
> Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to track down which change broke |
13 |
> something via git bisect. I would recommend that you try to do this, if |
14 |
> only just to learn how to make good commits. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> You could take a look at how the kernel folks handle this -- features go |
17 |
> in as several small commits/patches. |
18 |
|
19 |
As a non-dev direct git kernel tester and bug filer that now regularly |
20 |
bisects new bugs I find down to the individual commit, absolutely 100% |
21 |
agreed. It's SO much easier for even a non-dev to properly test and |
22 |
bisect a properly commit unitized git source, than it was to do it |
23 |
manually, before, and the quality of my bugs and the resolutions thereof |
24 |
well demonstrate that fact. |
25 |
|
26 |
While git branches are FWIW trivial, if you don't want to deal with them |
27 |
ATM, don't. Just get the unitary commits right, and use tagging to |
28 |
demarcate points where you believe it's stable enough to test. The rest |
29 |
will come, in time. (Again, I say this as a non-dev, but even tho I'm |
30 |
not a dev and don't fully understand git myself, in git, branching |
31 |
really /is/ trivial, even for non-dev testers. =:^) |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
35 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
36 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |