Author: Jeff Garzik 2014-12-15 21:54:20
Published on: 2014-12-15T21:54:20+00:00
The author of the email argues that code movement must be compressed into a tight time window to prevent a constant stream of patch breakage. They criticize the merge flow for unintentionally rewarding certain types of patches and creating disincentives for working on other types. Jeff Garzik responds by suggesting that the majority of code movement should occur up front, followed by algebraic simplifications and data structure work, in order to make further patches easier to review and apply with less impact on unrelated code. Cory Fields counters this suggestion by arguing that minor code changes are almost always needed to accommodate useful code movement at the micro level, citing a real example of a pull request to unchain an openssl wrapper. They express difficulty in coming up with a separate workflow to handle the two necessary changes while making review easier and suggest that grouping multiple code-movement changes together into a single pull request would be a massive headache.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T14:51:05.940668+00:00