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