| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:46:14 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> > A version bump plus cleaning up older ebuilds will be considered one |
| 6 |
>>> > logical change, I suppose? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> I'd consider it two logical changes ... |
| 9 |
>>> But I don't have a strong opinion on that |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> I do - I think this is really important. Having clean history makes a |
| 12 |
>> huge difference for anyone who wants to use that history. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> One argument against those clean professional development practices |
| 15 |
>> that comes up over and over is that it takes more time... |
| 16 |
>> but since git makes committing so easy usually the difference isn't |
| 17 |
>> very big, and the payoff when you benefit in the future is quite |
| 18 |
>> significant. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> ++ |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> A git commit is virtually instantaneous since it is entirely local. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Unlike CVS, git commit != git push, and understanding that is vital to |
| 25 |
effective us of git /as/ /git/. Commit is local and fast; it HAS to be |
| 26 |
to encourage single-logical-change commits. But you can separately |
| 27 |
commit one or a dozen or a dozen hundred logical changes as part of a |
| 28 |
single set or a few sets of commits and push them all at once, /just/ |
| 29 |
once. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Devs doing gentoo all day could easily do one or two pushes a day, with |
| 32 |
many commits in each. Those with less time might do the same work over |
| 33 |
several days or a week and might push just once or twice that week, if |
| 34 |
none of the changes are time-critical enough to be worth a more urgent |
| 35 |
push. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 39 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 40 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives