Re: [PATCH 2/7] Change canonicalize_url() to use the SVN 1.7 API when available.
- From
Michael G Schwern <schwern@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 28, 2012, 20:24 UTC
- Message-ID
- <50144A8A.3040307@pobox.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20120728200047.GA4188@burratino>
On 2012.7.28 1:02 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Show 19 quoted lines
> Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Michael G Schwern wrote: > >>> I would suggest that worrying whether a few lines of code are introduced now >>> or 10 patches later in the same branch which is all going to be merged in one >>> go (and retesting the patches after it) is not the most important thing. > [...] >> In that case they should be one patch, I'd think. >> >> The advantage of introducing changes gradually is that (1) the changes >> can be examined and tested one at a time, and (2) if later a change >> proves to be problematic, it can be isolated, understood, and fixed >> more easily. The strategy you are suggesting would have neither of >> those advantages. > > (To avoid confusion: by "The strategy you are suggesting" I mean > introducing dead code first and activating it later, not the path and > url object idea. The path and url object approach would be very > nice. :))
If this is all a topic branch then it doesn't matter much whether a couple lines of code is introduced at patch 8 of a branch or patch 13. Sure, it matters a little, but... https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Opportunity_cost
If it *isn't* going in a topic branch, if its not visible as a collected work in history, if its going to be rebased on top of master, then yeah I can see why you're so concerned.
-- Alligator sandwich, and make it snappy!