Re: [PATCH 2/4] Rename remote_only to display_mode
- From
Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
- Date
- Nov 3, 2006, 13:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <454B42E2.8070001@op5.se>
- In-Reply-To
- <200611031200.27275.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Andy Parkins wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> On Friday 2006 November 03 10:51, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > >> If you *need* to change something, change it. If you *want* to change >> something just because it's not written the way you would write it, back >> away. If you think some interface you're using needs clearing up >> (codewise or with extra comments), send a separate patch for that so the >> actual feature/bugfix you're sending in doesn't drown in cosmetic >> changes to the interfaces the patch uses/touches. > > Thank you for the excellent advice. What then would you suggest in the case > in point? I made as minimal a change as I could make; but that left the code > a little bit bitty - I had press-ganged a variable into taking on another > function and was using numeric literals that should really have been given > meaning with #define? > > My question is perhaps different from simply git-etiquette; it's should I > prefer my patches to be minimal or neat? If there is a more appropriate way > of doing something should I do it or should I favour minimalism? >
Neat, imo. Re-using old variables might be appropriate if the name of the variable still makes sense, but rename it if there's a better name for it.
Show 7 quoted lines
> I've actually rewritten it now as per Junio's request, and while I'm happier > with the code, it was much bigger change, that didn't really lend itself to > being broken into smaller patches as did my first attempt. > > I guess in the end it's a judgement call and the best thing to do is post it > and see who shoots it down :-) >
Probably the most sensible approach. Even though the list is pretty trigger-happy, the guns are more of the playful water-squirt type than the high-powered big-calibre kind.
-- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se