Jonathan Nieder venit, vidit, dixit 21.03.2011 18:49: > Michael J Gruber wrote: > >> Come on, with a cover-letter saying doc and tests are in 3/3, how much >> effort is it to read that before 1/3 if you care? > > Nonzero. Now multiply that by the number of people who are going to > look at the history over the years. > >> The tests are bogus before the code and the doc pointless before it. >> >> Squashing 1 and 3 is okay, of course. For my own digestion, smaller >> bites are better. > > The reason I mentioned the possibility of docs and tests before > implementation is that that can be a good way to get feedback on the > design of something when the implementation is not even ready yet. > Which doesn't apply hear, of course. > > Anyway, I don't care too much about this, but I wanted to make the > convention clear (if I have understood it correctly, at least). Maybe we should clarify this. No, I don't mean by taking it outside ;) If there's a different convention I'll try and follow that, of course. I'm very used to seeing "1/2 implementation" and "2/2 doc and tests", the other way round you would introduce failing tests (for new features). So I took that as a convention. You could always squash these, of course (just like my 2 and 3 in v2). I actually have to keep myself from feeling annoyed when I see documentation patches without any implementation, because a patch creates the impression that something has been done, but without any attempt at implementation it's hard to tell whether it's doable at all. This does not apply to pure RFD/design questions, of course. Cheers, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html