5 ms·
I'm guessing that's intentional. The idea is that if you are going to reformat code, it should be the only thing you do in a change; in other words, don't commi
by bradleybuda 12y ago
I'm guessing that's intentional. The idea is that if you are going to reformat code, it should be the only thing you do in a change; in other words, don't commit a change that both changes the semantics of the code and changes the formatting.
The principle is that formatting is orthogonal to other work and therefore shouldn't be mixed in. Unless you do something wrong, formatting changes are harmless so they can be scanned past by someone reviewing a changelog.
Here's a good discussion of the practice on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2214480/committing-when-changing-source-formatting http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2214480/committing-when-c...
- leejo 12y ago> Unless you do something wrong Therein lies the rub; when something goes wrong i want a commit message that explains why that formatting change was made. :lipstick: - add missing # char, as per conventions Would have taken all of 5 extra seconds to write and is a lot better future proofed. Remember, a commit message should explain why something changed and not just what changed.