Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW it is hard to read big rearrangement patches.
Agreed.
> It is made worse because sometimes they include actual code changes
> as well. For instance this patch wasn't just a rearrangement, it
> included semantic differences in file_contents.
That's right, I apologize. It is really related to the way I hack
automake. I don't understand it too well, and often have to read many
different sites before understanding some chunks. This is why
although I do make efforts to split my patches as much as possible,
they sometimes go wild.
> I'd prefer to see rearrangements separate from semantic changes. Then
> hopefully I can approve rearrangements without trying to read them in
> detail.
In the present case anyway it couldn't be just rearrangement, as
merging two routines together imply some tuning (mostly alpha
conversion :).
