Best Practices: Keeping the Repository History Understandable

[Mark A. Flacy]

On 2007.07.22 11:44, Evan Jones wrote:
?
> My concern here is that I am potentially cluttering up my history with  
> "intermediate" changes. ("fix the comment on the header"; "change the  
> interface on the Bar class"). I'm not convinced that I actually care  
> very much about the intermediate steps. When I'm browsing a file's  
> history in the main repository, trying to figure out what broke, I  
> think I want to see the "foo" feature and one "step". From a higher  
> level perspective, the main repository really just saw 1 change,  
> despite the fact that the "foo" feature was pushed as N changesets.
> 
> Maybe the answer is use MQ to avoid committing changes which aren't  
> 100% polished and ready to go into the main repository? Or maybe this  
> is a non-issue. In browsing the Mercurial or Mozilla project  
> histories, I don't see a lot of "temporary" commits, so I'm assuming  
> that people aren't doing the above. So what are people doing?

Why not this?

http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/TipsAndTricks#head-5b2e4d05ef883f9b5724f8f1e6d56487545159d3


-- 
Mark A. Flacy