Re: Git migration docs

2009/1/15 Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>:
> On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 16:08 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
>> On the kernel, for example, patches tend to be independent in the
>> sense that each change is atomic and would be justified on its own
>> accord; however, a patch series tends to lean toward achieving an
>> aggregate objective. This scenario tends to apply to implementing new
>> features that touches many pieces.
> I guess this kind of workflow just doesn't match the projects I work on,
> or how I work, though it seems to be very comfortable for other people.
> I then wish there was some way to group commits together to say "these
> are useful separately, but together they also achieve foo". Then I could
> choose to just look at the big-picture stuff.

You can send a cover letter (patch 0/n of the series) that explains
the big-picture and the whole diffstat (with the --cover-letter flag
of "git format-patch"). Unfortunately this is not saved anywhere.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]