On 23/04/2012 04:22 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.

The entire codebase is under 25KB. Arguably the project is too tiny for 
version control to actually matter. :-P

>> 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.

OK, fair enough.

>> 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.

Which is why you need communication. If nothing else, having two people 
try to implement the same thing is a waste of effort.

Post a reply to this message