| 1 |
On Friday, June 17, 2011 11:31:43 Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> What occurred to me in the context of this whole controversy, was that |
| 3 |
> not only can devs simply leave old versions for someone else to remove, |
| 4 |
> but they can, and routinely do, remove old versions as part of a commit |
| 5 |
> changing something in (some of) the remaining ones, as well. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
yes, which is why i find it a bit ironic when people claim that this |
| 8 |
information is useful while at the same basically generating garbage |
| 9 |
themselves. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> It's worth pointing out that if Mike and others' workflow already |
| 12 |
> involves a lot of this, they'd be modifying it very little if they simply |
| 13 |
> avoided separate removals. In fact, in borderline cases where a trivial |
| 14 |
> change may not have made it on its own, as it waited for a bigger change |
| 15 |
> to come along to be worth doing, the removals combined with the trivial |
| 16 |
> change may now trigger the trivial change commit earlier than it would |
| 17 |
> have occurred otherwise. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
if you look at my commit behavior, this is exactly the sort of thing i avoid. |
| 20 |
my cvs commits are pretty logically clean to the point where importing into |
| 21 |
git would result in nice behavior. which means i make one commit to remove, |
| 22 |
one commit to fix a specific bug, one commit to version bump, etc... |
| 23 |
-mike |
Archives