On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Frank Shearar wrote:

> On 2011/03/03 23:20, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>> A new version of Tools was added to project The Inbox:
>> http://source.squeak.org/inbox/Tools-fbs.301.mcz
>> 
>> ==================== Summary ====================
>> 
>> Name: Tools-fbs.301
>> Author: fbs
>> Time: 3 March 2011, 11:20:00.889 pm
>> UUID: 9f787d80-6eb1-0741-a5ac-57d3a80a3c7a
>> Ancestors: Tools-fbs.300
>> 
>> * Complete removal of systemCategoryListIndex, replaced by 
>> selectedSystemCategory.
>> * selectedSystemCategoryListIndex/selectedSystemCategoryListIndex: remain, 
>> used by Morphic, and defer to 
>> selectedSystemCategory/selectedSystemCategory:.
>> * selectedSystemCategoryName defers to selectedSystemCategory, and all its 
>> callers now call selectedSystemCategory.
>> * PackagePaneBrowser>>hasSystemCategorySelected pulled up to Browser.
>> 
>> =============== Diff against Tools-fbs.300 ===============
>
> Inbox etiquette question: I'm working on a fairly big chunk of code, ripping 
> out Browser's indices. I could make 4 or 5 further commits of about the same 
> complexity as this commit to finish off the change.
>
> I can see a couple of options:
> 1. Submit big chunks basing off Trunk, letting us lose the indices piecemeal. 
> Basically, branch-per-feature, and each commit's a completed subfeature.
> 2. Submit one megachange, so that Tools-fbs.301 can be deleted.
> 3. Submit big chunks each based off the previous commit: a single branch with 
> serial commits.
> 4. Other situations?
>
> I really don't like option 2: we're talking about rewriting large chunks of a 
> critical piece of infrastructure.
>
> So what's the preferred way of submitting large features to the Inbox?

It's up to you. For the integrators 1 and 3 are the best. Reviewing small 
changes is always easier.


Levente

>
> frank
>
>