John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Are you kidding ? I have 10+ trees. They form a significant percentage
| of my disk space.
|
| Let's see: ideally, the patches committed recently would have been in
| about 30 different parts. Seeing as most are dependent on each other,
| I make that to be say 25 trees. Do you have 25 lyx trees ?
No, because I delete them after the patch has been committed.
| And I don't remember seeing you doing anything like
| this otherwise, which is surprising if it's as easy as you say. All I
| see are non-interdependent patches which are easy enough to manage, just
| by physically splitting up a diff or whatever.
It seems that you want to go from one extreme (everything in one
patch) to the other extreme (incremental patches for one single
feature)
That is not what I am asking for. I only want different changes in
different patches.
| > For your first patch the one with the functions renameing and header
| > work, I would probably have been working in 3-4 different trees.
| >
| > It is not as if the changes where inter-dependant.
|
| Huh ? They were almost *ALL* in the same area of code i.e. conflicted
| head on. Patch C wouldn't apply or be possible without patches B and A,
| etc.
Yes, but the several of the changes where orthogonal.
And the "area of code" has nothing to do with this.
The name changing feks.
--
Lgb
