[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Rietveld workflow problems
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:10:56 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:39:01AM +0100, Peekay Ex wrote:
> So, and this is a genuine question, why do you need to make a tiny
> patch so that a (next) larger patch works. Why not include the tiny
> patch in your larger patch (if that makes sense)?

Remember when you were first learning doc stuff, and I kept on
telling you to make smaller patches?  It's just like that.

I mean, pretend that you notice a typo in a doc section that you
want to rearrange.  Now, the rearranging will be contentious;
we'll argue about the best order, the number of @nodes to use,
whether we can make the examples shorter, etc.  It's take weeks to
discuss.  But fixing that typo would only be a few seconds -- just
get that done first!

In the cases that David is suggesting, the "typo" is slightly more
serious than a literal typo (i.e. it's something that should
probably be examined by other developers), but it's still
something that needs to get done before the other work can begin.

In short, it's absolutely good software engineering to *not*
include that tiny patch in the larger one.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]