<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.26.0">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Sun, 2010-09-26 at 13:42 +0300, Vignatti Tiago (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">"A commit should contain exactly one logical change. A logical change includes</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">adding a new feature, fixing a specific bug, etc. If it's not possible to</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">describe the high level change in a few words, it is most likely too complex</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">for a single commit. The diff itself should be as concise as reasonably</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">possibly and it's almost always better to err on the side of too many patches</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">than too few. As a rule of thumb, given only the commit message, another</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">developer should be able to implement the same patch in a reasonable amount of</FONT></TT><BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a">time." - from <A HREF="http://who-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html">http://who-t.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-commit-messages.html</A>.</FONT></TT><BR>
<BR>
<TT><FONT COLOR="#1a1a1a"> Tiago</FONT></TT><BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. The more code changes in the patch, the higher the likelihood of both the author <BR>
and the reviewer of overlooking an issue.<BR>
<BR>
Just like "good programming practices", "good patching practices" is not an exact science<BR>
and will always be the subject of debate.
</BODY>
</HTML>