5 ms·
I understand the overhead, but it seems like bundling lots of unrelated cleanup fixes into one large commit would make it easier to sneak in something nefarious
by hundchenkatze 5y ago
I understand the overhead, but it seems like bundling lots of unrelated cleanup fixes into one large commit would make it easier to sneak in something nefarious.
- nneonneo 5y agoThey’re still going to be reviewed, and if the cover letter says “typo fixes” and one of the patches fixes more than a typo, that would be an instant red flag. A single bigger patch set is faster and easier to review.
- klodolph 5y agoI think the general idea would be something like, "Fix spelling errors in log messages" and bundle several changes that do that.
- jandrese 5y agoAll parts of the patch have to be reviewed regardless. It just saves one session startup/tear down per patch.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoI'd argue it would make it LESS likely; seeing a hundred "cleanup" merge requests that are all basically the same thing vs a single one where something more than just cleanup would stand out.
- nhaehnle 5y agoMy understanding is that they're not necessarily asking for the commits to be squashed, they're asking for them to be submitted together as a patch series. Patch series are an important part of a healthy review workflow because they allow both a micro and a macro view of changes. I have written about this before: http://nhaehnle.blogspot.com/2020/06/they-want-to-be-small-they-want-to-be.html http://nhaehnle.blogspot.com/2020/06/they-want-to-be-small-t...