On February 1, 2010 8:37:27 PM +0100 Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
Doesn't it defeat the purpose of git vs cvs (having changesets) to have these patches as individual commits vs a single changeset????
Or is it a quirk of the way they are mailed that they look like separate changes.
If they're mailed as separate changes, they will be applied as separate changes.
I'm inclined to have more small changes, because it makes any later merge *much* easier. Having a few large changes makes merges annoying.
My experience is the opposite, at least for some values of "large". But it is always better to group a set of patches that comprise a single logical change into a single changeset. That makes change review sane, and that happens much more frequently than merging. Now of course if one patch in a changeset is bad, yes that does invalidate the entire changeset, but the fix for that is still easy: make the single correction in the branch, then do a single merge which includes both of the branch's changesets. Just for a trivial example, if you change the type of a struct member in a header file, the c files which reference that struct and depend on it's type being known must be included in the same changeset. -frank