commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [collections] merging collections
Date Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:03:48 GMT
As you can see from the svn commit spam, I went with a variant of b).
Initially doing some large commits for files that hadn't had much
change on the branch, and then doing a per file commit with additional
logging for the specific changes. Apologies for the spam, but I think
it'll be worth it in the long term.

Also should mean that JIRA will pick up the merge for each issue too.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
> Side thought if anyone feels like having an opinion.
> Which is better?
> a) One big commit, merging the branch in in one go (the usual approach).
> b) One commit per file, with the commit log including all of the
> change history of the file while it was on the branch; except for a
> few global commits that wouldn't add any value.
> One potential bad for b) would be if files were renamed, but that
> didn't notably happen in this case.
> It seems a shame to lose history like:
> "r555925 | skestle | 2007-07-13 03:39:24 -0700 (Fri, 13 Jul 2007) | 2 lines
> Added Edwin Tellman's patch for COLLECTIONS-243.
> It all seems pretty reasonable, and it should all be checked again as
> the project is worked through"
> so I'm willing to give scripting b) a shot.
> Hen

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message