Re: Rotation fixes

[Jaroslav Hajek]

2010/8/27 John W. Eaton <address@hidden>:
> On 26-Aug-2010, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
> | 2010/8/26 John W. Eaton <address@hidden>:
> |
> | > If you want your patch to be considered for inclusion in Octave, then
> | > please post a single changeset that implements your proposed changes
> | > instead of asking us to pull from your archive and sort out which
> | > changes we should apply/skip/fix.
> |
> | Well, they should all be pulled. I rather liked how they were split up
> | into individual changesets, but you say you prefer one large
> | changeset?
> |
> | Oops, I forgot about writing a changelog. Is it ok if I just use the
> | commit messages to form the changelog entries? I think I've seen that
> | this is the usual way to do things. Hm, does someone have a pre-commit
> | hook for hg for just this purpose? Or if I write one, would you like
> | to share it?
>
> The point is that we don't need all the changsets that include the
> debugging code then the removing of the debugging code.  Just send us
> one changeset that has the end result including the ChangeLog
> entries.  We don't need to see every intermediate step you took along
> the way.
>
> jwe
>
>

John, I thought you already agreed that branch & merge is OK for large
changes that are developed separately for longer period of time.
Producing a single change out of a longer branch is not only
cumbersome, but also potentially more error-prone if conflicts occur.
Merging allows you to resolve conflicts incrementally, as soon as they
are introduced, instead of resolving everything at once when the
change is linearized.

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek, PhD
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz