[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
> > Yes, but in some cases they're the *only* way to do something. If I'm
> > ripping a 300 line function out of one file and creating a new one with
> > that function in it, there is *no way* I can do that in less than 600
> > lines.
> If you are ripping a 300 line function, you should break it into pieces, as
> 300
> may be a little too much (obviously depends on situation). And including it in
> new one which will result in 600 lines of code looks even worse, this is imho
> definitively a bad idea ;-). I would make first patch which would rip the
> function, second patch which would rip another function and third patch which
> would create function merging those two by calling ripped bits of them ;-).
But in even ripping apart the 300 line function, you're getting a huge
patch. We need a branch (not a tree, a branch) where large patches are
acceptable PROVIDED they're simply moving code around or reworking ONE
major concept/layout. I think huge patches that touch 17 functions are
horrendous and should not be accepted. But if a patch is 300 consecutive
lines starting with "-" and another 300 lines starting with "-" and
everything after the "-"s and "+"s is identical, it makes no sense to
reject it for being too large.
> Obviously, there are some situations when making little patch is impossible.
> However even if the patch is larger, it should always focus only on one
> feature, not fixing/adding more things at once.
Correct. The other problem I ran into which lead to huge patches was
moving the declaration/initialization of the commands struct in
server/stdinhand.c from one file to another. There's no way you can break
that up or rip it apart. It's going in/out as a whole. And when I
submitted it, it (of course) was rejected as being "too large" despite the
inherient size issues over which there is *no* control.
-jdm
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Email: justin@xxxxxxxxxxx
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, (continued)
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Andrew Sutton, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Petr Baudis, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Kevin Brown, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Petr Baudis, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Kevin Brown, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Petr Baudis, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Daniel L Speyer, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Raimar Falke, 2001/11/30
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Justin Moore, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Petr Baudis, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development,
Justin Moore <=
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Raimar Falke, 2001/11/30
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Raimar Falke, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Justin Moore, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Reinier Post, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Justin Moore, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Reinier Post, 2001/11/30
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Stewart Adcock, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Kevin Brown, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Ben Webb, 2001/11/29
- [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development, Raimar Falke, 2001/11/29
|
|