[petsc-dev] Pushing non-working code

[Jed Brown]

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was not being flippant here, but noting that the baseline is the current
> system which is being criticized.
>

I outlined many ways in which organizing patches for reviewability and
feature-provenance is a good thing. You have essentially said that it's
easier for you if you don't have to think about what constitutes a feature
or think about using your DVCS to structure your patches such that they are
topical and incrementally readable. Meanwhile, there is a ton of evidence
that thinking about what constitutes a feature and making it incrementally
readable improves quality (we've observed this directly, as have countless
open source projects, and it is corroborated by the looking at the methods
in several of the studies that I cited).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130203/5a340f0c/attachment.html>