Re: [PATCH 2/4] Rename remote_only to display_mode

Andy Parkins wrote:

On Friday 2006 November 03 10:51, Andreas Ericsson wrote:

quoted

If you *need* to change something, change it. If you *want* to change
something just because it's not written the way you would write it, back
away. If you think some interface you're using needs clearing up
(codewise or with extra comments), send a separate patch for that so the
actual feature/bugfix you're sending in doesn't drown in cosmetic
changes to the interfaces the patch uses/touches.

Thank you for the excellent advice.  What then would you suggest in the case 
in point?  I made as minimal a change as I could make; but that left the code 
a little bit bitty - I had press-ganged a variable into taking on another 
function and was using numeric literals that should really have been given 
meaning with #define?

My question is perhaps different from simply git-etiquette; it's should I 
prefer my patches to be minimal or neat?  If there is a more appropriate way 
of doing something should I do it or should I favour minimalism?

Neat, imo. Re-using old variables might be appropriate if the name of 
the variable still makes sense, but rename it if there's a better name 
for it.

I've actually rewritten it now as per Junio's request, and while I'm happier 
with the code, it was much bigger change, that didn't really lend itself to 
being broken into smaller patches as did my first attempt.

I guess in the end it's a judgement call and the best thing to do is post it 
and see who shoots it down :-)

Probably the most sensible approach. Even though the list is pretty 
trigger-happy, the guns are more of the playful water-squirt type than 
the high-powered big-calibre kind.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se