Re: [Monotone-devel] monotone Hacking

[William Uther]

On 11/09/2007, at 9:12 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:

> Richard Levitte <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > In message <address@hidden> on  
> > Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:22:43 +0200, "Julio M. Merino Vidal"  
> > <address@hidden> said:
> >
> > jmmv84> Using plain text messages will make one think twice before
> > jmmv84> doing that, because he'll have to explain *why* he is
> > jmmv84> committing that at once.
> >
> > I totally agree with that.  There are numerous messages saying that
> > the programmer fiddle with this and that function, created a new one,
> > removed an old one, but NOT ONE WORD about the overall change, its
> > intention or its reasons.  Basically, that makes for crap
> > documentation.
>
> On the other hand, that is the way we typically work. I often notice
> "little things" while I'm working on one "big thing". Would it be
> better to _not_ fix them? Or do one commit for each little thing?

Depends upon the policy of the project, but yeah "commit one for each  
little thing" is common.  Commits are cheap, and if you ever have to  
revert a commit, having all the non-associated changes in different  
commits is really useful.

Will        :-}