John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Dirty history" is not only tolerated, but the *only* sane option with,
> lesse... rcs cvs svn darcs tla baz (bzr?)
>
> Only the git and hg people seem to care (and the git people a lot more than
> hg people).
After you get used to get branches with proper commits for review, you
see the pros.
It is much easier to everyone to handle it. It's clearer for someone
looking when it has been done and he has a logical unit doing the
change instead of 10 commits with messed log messages without visual
relation but doing a single logical change.
As I said before, I usually commit very ofthen. After the change is
done I redo the branch splitting the change in logical units.
Each change has a nice and well descripted comment that gives good
information to everyone interested on it.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
