On Sun, 02 Mar 2008, Mike Bird wrote: > You've rattled on at great length without showing any value to git > logs beyond providing clues to a successor developer where a > predecessor falls under a bus part way through developing a feature.
That's still good enough for me. Seems that I got something through to you, at least. > I would argue that even in such cases a better form of insurance > would be a design specification, and that if a design specification Now, that's something I'd like to see happening. I am used to design specifications ending up in the commit log (or not existing at all, which really pains me) when dealing with free software development. Rarely will it be properly documented and added to the project tree. Often, any such specs are found in a mailinglist thread somewhere, which is even more decoupled from the code than a comment, commit log entry, or a text document somewhere in the project tree. > is not warranted then the feature is trivial and it's better to > discard the partially implemented trivial feature and have the new > developer restart development of the trivial new feature from scratch. Now, that I agree with. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
