[Development] Cherry picking to replace a change set

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 11:37:03AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 2 de setembro de 2013 18:46:37, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > in fact, point 4 of the commit policy is pretty clear on that matter. it
> > is absurd to remove function (specific to the scope of the commit) from
> > the definition of atomicity.
> > also, the policy does not know a "topic" concept, for good reasons. you
> > cannot use topics (or branches which you intend to merge, for that
> > matter) as an excuse for violating the policy.
> 
> We established that I disagree with those definitions in a previous
> discussion on this topic.
> 
you did, however, make no effort to substantiate your position.
an argument against your interpretation is for example bisectability.
also, it's just plain illogical to tear apart an allegedly "too complex"
change, because then assessing the pieces requires adding "external"
context. which is just a less handy way to review one big change.