From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sverre Rabbelier" Subject: Re: Development strategy Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 01:04:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: <48441715.4010507@gmail.com> <484475FC.8020804@gmail.com> Reply-To: sverre@rabbelier.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Git Mailing List" , "John Hawley" To: "Lea Wiemann" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 03 01:05:51 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K3J67-0003DM-G7 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:05:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753075AbYFBXEI (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:04:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755426AbYFBXEF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:04:05 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.172]:31809 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752657AbYFBXEC (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:04:02 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so1017937wfd.4 for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=jcFqrQOT/65hMGIdp7Sg0p9Zlpwr4mb9d1bZD+n8ql8=; b=T41FKg/voQpIj12UgThARxkkfF5ue6/XSpkhd11OdrTcntZ92Kr7y/FTkJwmoVTZIp9IlYSLQ9DA9YM8geT0K3G9hRmPtvTZwGWDXWBM5jeYACEhZJ5DFHEHbCcjALW7rUwc9HMROJxfJCOcl/EeGnWTOHwyRHND5JAVvI1sT1o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EJZSNtwk+NbBKuvV2IilyepM+RP+3tRzRDMgIr9sVJE1UkCa2XcZTGn6z6X5pgmIDJlM5+xdSt+N+eAfO05rOjIsCUQPnQS9V9aHKUQnznu5EHz1i4vOjyMcWAJBaFgtZnTvi5pU21dNQP7w6fsLuYwUsALF37lxcRncgk+b24Y= Received: by 10.142.48.14 with SMTP id v14mr243410wfv.14.1212447841602; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.41.7 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:04:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <484475FC.8020804@gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Lea Wiemann wrote: > Are you suggesting that the squashed patches get merged, or that the > squashed patches get reviewed but the finer-granulated patches get merged? The latter is what I suggested :). I reckon you'll want ot keep the finger-granulated history for future reference / bisecting, but when reviewing that seems overkill. > In the former case, I'd probably prefer to work with larger patches in the > first place (and not just squash them on the review branch), since they are > easier to handle -- e.g. I sometimes need to go back and change things in > earlier commits, and in those cases larger commits are easier. If you don't think you're omitting information you will want later on (meaning the more specific commit history), by all means, go with the bigger patches. I find it nicer to create small commits, with the plus that it cuts down the size of the commit msg too ;). -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier