On 4/21/2012 11:22, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Actually, it took me about 20 minutes to fix all the changes. It's just that
> for those 20 minutes, the code is broken. And if anybody got some of the
> commits but not the rest, that'd have broken code.

Then that's not a really big change. It should be all one commit.

>>> Isn't that why you /talk to/ the other developers?
>>
>> Sure. If you can get people to stop development on those things for
>> however long it takes you to fix them, that works. Sometimes that's not
>> feasible. Especially if it's live production code.
>
> Which leads me back to "isn't that what branches are for?"

Only if you like doing the merges. If you're talking about 20 minutes, sure, 
you don't even need a branch. If you're talking about a few weeks, you're 
going to have a mess of a merge.

> So create a new branch. Play around with the new design in your experimental
> branch. /When it's finished/, merge it back into the main trunk.
>
> Isn't that how this game is supposed to work?

Indeed, as long as the merge isn't too messy. Imagine if two people do the 
same sort of thing at once.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message