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