[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Half-baked unused features.

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Half-baked unused features.
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:06:14 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 8/15/10 7:39 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>>> On 8/15/10 6:48 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> IMO, getting rid of bit-rotted code is always a good idea.
>>>> Should it
>>>> be wrapped in a full review process?
>>> I think so.  The full review process for removing old stuff is
>>> generally very short and sweet (post the patch, somebody important
>>> says OK), so I don't think it hurts a bit to do it.
>> It only involves creating a separate branch, moving the change there,
>> removing the change from all ongoing development in related areas
>> (and/or postponing work on them until the review process of the bitrot
>> change has come to a close), creating a Rietveld issue, uploading the
>> changes to Rietveld, monitoring all progress on it, repeating a full
>> regtest for any proposed modifications and juggling with
>> merge/cherry-pick while doing the parallel development and so on.
> No, you said it was all in one commit.  So you have a branch with that
> commit and you keep rebasing it.

I don't have that branch yet.

> When uploading patches to Rietveld one can choose whatever commit is
> desired as the reference for the upload, so I think that overlapping
> patches can be handled without too much difficulty.

Whatever.  I'll jump through the hoops for now.  I am not confident that
I will consider doing cleanup worth the trouble in future.  If you have
to invest those resources, it distracts from what you actually wanted to
be doing.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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