3 ms·
The catch is, does it have to be functional at every step? It may be hard to find checkpoints inside a PR where the changes still produce a useful (testable) pr
by JoeAltmaier 3y ago
The catch is, does it have to be functional at every step? It may be hard to find checkpoints inside a PR where the changes still produce a useful (testable) product without breaking anything.
If it doesn't have to be testable in three pieces, then why break it down? For clarity when reviewing the changes perhaps.
- alkonaut 3y agoThe best reason to have it broken up is for posterity to be able to annotate the changes. If there is a 100 line refactor followed by the 10 line actual functional change, then it's a blessing to be able to look at that in isolation when something has gone wrong with it 5 or 10 years later.