[FFmpeg-devel] DVCPRO HD: request for review

[Måns Rullgård]

Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 07:46:29PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Roman Shaposhnik <rvs at sun.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 23:16 +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 21:33 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 06:35:34PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> > > We can easily change the commit emails to use diff -w, if that's what
>> >> > > people want.
>> >> > 
>> >> > That way someone could (unintentionally) randomize indention and move us
>> >> > a step closer to mplayer.c style without anyone noticing
>> >> 
>> >> You could include another patch changing the indentation in the same
>> >> mail, or versions of the patch with and without -w (in case they differ
>> >> on >= N lines). I think the former would be strictly better than having
>> >> commits creating incorrect indentation and then mostly pointless "fix
>> >> indentation after previous commit" mails on the list and as separate
>> >> commits in VCS history.
>> >
>> > It is nice to see that I'm not alone in considering this particular
>> > policy to be suboptimal. Although, now that I'm using Git, it doesn't
>> > bug me all that much that I have to split "code transactions", yet
>> > it still leads to polluted history if you ask me.
>> 
>> I agree, but I won't pick a fight over it.
>
> There is noone with whom you could pick a fight with i think. If you
> can automate spliting commits in functional parts + indention
> changes of otherwise unchanged code i suspect few would complain.
> Of course this must work in practice, which includes svn di (-x -w) and
> developers not messing up like commiting unrelated cosmetics together with
> functional changes. After all this is just about spliting reindention
> when adding/removing a if/else/for ...
>
> moving code around, renaming variables, ... all still would have to be split
> by hand.
> in that light its also not clear to me if this automatic spliting is worth it
> but i surely do not object if (and only if) it does work in practice.

You seem to have missed my point.  I don't really like the splitting
at all, whether manual or automatic.  IMO it only serves to clutter
the revision history.  Now I know you disagree, and it doesn't bother
me enough that I want to argue about it, so let's just leave it there.

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com