Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> My main concern is having to stop and write detailed log messages every
> time I want to change the infrastructure code a little bit. You don't
> know what you want your low-level routines to do until you've written a
> bunch of higher-level routines, so there were a lot of such moments in
> ra_svn.
>
> And I'm just not sure how much value there is in seeing all the
> intermediate steps before a new module of moderate size is implemented.
> Commits tend to be unreviewable due to the amount of refactoring
> involved, and even when review is possible, the feedback is usually of
> limited value. Collaboration isn't generally possible because of the
> level of churn and unwritten design details. It's true that people
> might have noticed the non-apr sockets code earlier, but that only took
> two hours to fix after the power plant.
Understood. (I don't know enough to say whether more incrementalism
was possible in this case or not, but whatever. As long as we all
know that it is encouraged, we'll try to do it where possible, that's
the most one can hope for in changes like this.)
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 4 00:15:49 2002