From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael G Schwern Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Change canonicalize_url() to use the SVN 1.7 API when available. Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:24:42 -0700 Message-ID: <50144A8A.3040307@pobox.com> References: <1343468312-72024-1-git-send-email-schwern@pobox.com> <1343468312-72024-3-git-send-email-schwern@pobox.com> <20120728135018.GB9715@burratino> <50143700.80900@pobox.com> <20120728193029.GB3107@burratino> <501442D5.6080207@pobox.com> <20120728195733.GC3107@burratino> <20120728200047.GA4188@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, robbat2@gentoo.org, bwalton@artsci.utoronto.ca, normalperson@yhbt.net To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 28 22:24:54 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SvDZF-0005EY-M9 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 22:24:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753111Ab2G1UYq (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:24:46 -0400 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:64095 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753087Ab2G1UYp (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:24:45 -0400 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAE68B52; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:24:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=P610dGxVmC6B YTeaER/R0enhNzA=; b=fEcxWaDjz4xW0WfU5h3T9Rejm50d2iKnl78JRKcfDqgM W/i8EyNwQm5IS9236Tif/tBmmB/IdtNJmbZlWWGumaAfDDt4ufQYxTZqzdiBscq3 dBmOZn/S7+5Vz9byzTmr9dUnKaYqqP9XQnwDIpu12aW/ZR0IvPumZC3iVyLEgO8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=dyO/0T y3+8YUq3dHpaDCgMwGUQ7N9tKWkEl33SX3rGoIUP9hJOJ3Zg+SUwYUvL6YPFCmx7 VSb5tVrSNV+0dbRJiRdUNwCFPKzLM4VeLss/OIoLukwkQisnta2Cr/yDn+b1HaqO zgZX+oHcrONqT/M2lKiIMABG3P6uGVCJe5Uyg= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED40B8B51; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from windhund.local (unknown [71.236.173.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEFFE8B50; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:24:43 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: <20120728200047.GA4188@burratino> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 44A5D9D8-D8F2-11E1-B68D-01B42E706CDE-02258300!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 2012.7.28 1:02 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > 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!