4 ms·
> His suggestion that in order to keep your git history pristine you should just email patches until you can get to a working state seems bizarre. To me, it do
by saraid216 13y ago
> His suggestion that in order to keep your git history pristine you should just email patches until you can get to a working state seems bizarre.
To me, it doesn't sound meaningfully different from walking over to a coworker and arguing over the code or its results for a while. The "emailing patches" thing seems more like a slow-by-necessity feedback loop due to the fact that Linux contributors are across the world and even IMing or real-time screen-sharing doesn't make sense.
- IgorPartola 13y agoThe distributed nature of the Linux kernel is exactly where imposing some structure on how patches are distributed would make sense to me. Linus resisted doing anything but deal with emailed patches for a really long time until he was called out on it. His reasoning was that he can keep up with it and keep everything straight, and the argument against him was that others couldn't. I know that keeping a clean history is very important, but keeping all the patches straight IMHO is even more important and git is exactly the tool for that job. Email is the wrong tool for that job aside from some very occasional "check this out, am I being stupid here?" type things. Then again, I am not a kernel developer and have no idea what I am talking about. All I can contribute is that on small-ish projects (up to 10 people on a team), using git differently makes everyone's lives easier at the cost of the history looking slightly worse.