Question about features
dcarrera at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 10:49:07 GMT 2009
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Maarten Bosmans <mkbosmans at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another nice way of working is something I believe is called 'daggy
> fixes', or something like that. When you want to fix a bug, you branch
> from the point the bug was introduced into the mainline and merge that
> bugfix branch back into the mainline.
That is completely impractical. I am developing a new site, and
chances are that any bug I find was there from the beginning.
Furthermore, it seems like needless hassle to go look for the revision
that introduced that line, and for what purpose? I just want to fix
> I didn't mean to suggest that you split your commits for one feature
> into different branches, just that avoiding the bugfix commits
> intertwined in the feature commits would lead to a clearer branch
The usual case is that I have to change several parts of the code at a
time in order to add a new user-visible feature. I repeatedly push the
changes to the server until the feature is complete. At that point I
want to take all my changes and re-enter them as a set of nice
No trees were killed in the generation of this message. A large number
of electrons were, however, severely inconvenienced.
More information about the bazaar