3 ms·

I have to side with Joey on this one. Sure in a world like the Linux kernel, where things are still done via emailed patches, avoiding sending a patch-bomb to a

by ch 11y ago

I have to side with Joey on this one. Sure in a world like the Linux kernel, where things are still done via emailed patches, avoiding sending a patch-bomb to a maintainer warrants some editorial control on the history of a feature. However, like Joey, I tend to find beauty in the organic evolution of code. Plus I like others to see all the commits where I'm just cursing out build systems, or dev tools or just mumbling about a 'misspeeling'.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
It's not the volume of patches that's a problem. Linux is actually pickier than most projects about "one logical change per commit". However, I'm a big fan of "every single commit must compile and be logically correct". The combination of the two can make it difficult to "evolve" the code incrementally towards a wildly different solution, but I think it's a good step to reduce the complexity individual developers and maintainers have to deal with, as well as enforcing desirable properties of the resulting git commits.