Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > [ about micro commits ]
> > (As a side benefit, if one of my little micro-commits turns out to
> > have a bug, you can easily revert *just that commit*, without having
> > to manually sort out exactly which pieces related to that change.)
>
> I don't actually have a lot of faith in such an approach. My experience
> is that bugs arise from unforeseen interactions of changes, and that
> "backing out just one" isn't a useful thing to do, even if none of the
> later parts of the patch directly depend on it.
>
> So, yeah, presenting a patch as a series of edits can be useful for
> review purposes, but I'm not at all excited about cluttering the
> long-term project history with a zillion micro-commits. One of the
> things I find most annoying about reviewing the current commit history
> is that Bruce has taken a micro-commit approach to managing the TODO
> list --- I was seldom so happy as the day that disappeared from CVS,
> because of the ensuing reduction in noise level.
Yea, that was a problem that is now fixed.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
