Re: Half-baked unused features.

[Carl Sorensen]

On 8/15/10 9:40 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> On 8/15/10 7:39 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> I think so.  The full review process for removing old stuff is
>>>> generally very short and sweet (post the patch, somebody important
>>>> says OK), so I don't think it hurts a bit to do it.
>>> 
>>> It only involves creating a separate branch, moving the change there,
>>> removing the change from all ongoing development in related areas
>>> (and/or postponing work on them until the review process of the
>>> bitrot change has come to a close), creating a Rietveld issue,
>>> uploading the changes to Rietveld, monitoring all progress on it,
>>> repeating a full regtest for any proposed modifications and juggling
>>> with merge/cherry-pick while doing the parallel development and so
>>> on.
>> 
>> No, you said it was all in one commit.  So you have a branch with that
>> commit and you keep rebasing it.  It's quite easy to do.
> 
> The rebase is in conflict with the other development.  I tried that
> first, but stopped before seriously working on the rebase conflicts
> (experience tells me that one such conflict is followed by number of
> conflicts in the same series, making this very tiresome since your
> conflict resolution leads to more conflicts later).  Saving time less
> experienced gitters would likely expend.  At the cost of making the
> review less usable (patches won't apply to user source).
> 
> So up to now, just a bit more than 30 minutes of work.  "short and
> sweet, doesn't hurt a bit".  Huh.

But if you don't have a patch that applies to user source, how can you
"remove the feature in a single commit"?  It seems that the problem you're
having right now is one of isolating the removal of the old code.  Your
first email said "if I remove the old code in a separate commit that can be
reverted" or something to that effect.

The problem you're talking about now is a problem of isolating the removal,
not one of waiting for review on Rietveld.

Thanks,

Carl