On 3/23/2014 6:56 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Albert-Jan Roskam <fo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One more thing (so this is not entirely a double post!). While reading these
books I found that the authors were pretty religious about Clean Commits. I
mean, ok, it's not a good idea to do one huge monolithic commit each month, but
I felt they were exaggerating. But maybe I'm wrong and clean commits become
more important when the number of collaborators get bigger. It's just so easy
to fix something, and e.g. correct that typo in a docstring while you're at it.
It's important even with a single editor. When you go back and look at
a commit, you should be able to read the summary and know immediately
whether a particular line in it should have been edited or not.
Combining changes into a single commit makes that harder.
Commits are cheap. Do more of 'em rather than less.
With multiple branches (as with 2.7, 3.4, and default for cpython) and
multiple active developers (20?) commiting to those brances, commits are
definitely not free. I would not exactly call them as cheap as you seem
to imply either. That said, I have occasionally pushed interim changes
that put code in an improved and stable state.
N. Coughlan has suggested improving the cpython infrastructure and
procedures to reduce the cost of commits to encourage more people to
make more commits (in the sense of more lines changed, not more pieces)
and improve cpython faster.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
