Re: [PATCH 2/7] Change canonicalize_url() to use the SVN 1.7 API when available.

On 2012.7.28 1:02 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

Jonathan Nieder wrote:

quoted

Michael G Schwern wrote:

quoted

quoted

I would suggest that worrying whether a few lines of code are introduced now
or 10 patches later in the same branch which is all going to be merged in one
go (and retesting the patches after it) is not the most important thing.

[...]

quoted

In that case they should be one patch, I'd think.

The advantage of introducing changes gradually is that (1) the changes
can be examined and tested one at a time, and (2) if later a change
proves to be problematic, it can be isolated, understood, and fixed
more easily.  The strategy you are suggesting would have neither of
those advantages.

(To avoid confusion: by "The strategy you are suggesting" I mean
introducing dead code first and activating it later, not the path and
url object idea.  The path and url object approach would be very
nice. :))

If this is all a topic branch then it doesn't matter much whether a couple
lines of code is introduced at patch 8 of a branch or patch 13.  Sure, it
matters a little, but...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Opportunity_cost

If it *isn't* going in a topic branch, if its not visible as a collected work
in history, if its going to be rebased on top of master, then yeah I can see
why you're so concerned.


-- 
Alligator sandwich, and make it snappy!