Notes for DLang maintainers

Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Feb 28 07:04:35 PST 2017


On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 14:52:36 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> Thanks. I'd replace "changes should be split into as many 
> commits as is reasonable" with "changes should be split into as 
> many pull requests as is reasonable", which is a natural 
> consequence of "most pull requests should consist of one commit 
> upon merging". (Of course there may be several commits during 
> PR review.)

Well... not always. For example, introducing a private function 
that is not called from anywhere is something that doesn't really 
make sense as a pull request of its own, but does make sense as a 
separate commit.

> One vs. several commits per merged pull request is a matter in 
> which reasonable people may disagree, and we can't do both 
> ways. The Foundation fosters that github pull requests are 
> squashed upon merging, with exceptions that need to be 
> justified.

Sorry, but I don't think that's reasonable at all.

I have seen no arguments to support this way of doing things, 
only downsides. Established major projects seem to agree.

As far as I can see, this is not about a subjective point 
regarding which reasonable people may disagree. It seems to be a 
poorly justified mandate, that's all.

As I've mentioned previously, you will need to provide some 
arguments which would outweigh those supporting the opposite 
position.

> The Foundation fosters

IMHO, this phrase does not belong in technical discussions.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list