> If you would like it split up, I would need some guidance about what you
> feel should be an individual coherent step here.
>> If you look at the PR, you should see that there are zero logical code
> changes. All of this is changes to individual switch statements.
You PR has detailed description of the changes, but the commits do not.
Maybe you could split the description to several parts, and include each
part to a commit doing that change?
Okay, I need to understand the goal for this, because it's a lot of work to try to rebuild the changes in some order that I think you will accept, and then have it explained that there is some change or something I didn't forsee and have to redo it all again.
If this request is that you want a commit history broken into some logical layers, I can do that, but I feel like if you can review the PR changes first and give commentary, then I can know how it should be broken up. I don't want to break it up first and then have to redo it again and again.
The PR description is not code comments, it's an explanation of everything in the PR changes, and much of it is questions that I am requesting comment on, which are not appropriate as commit comments. I feel like the changes should be discussed and agreed upon before trying to make a "pretty" commit history, if that's what is needed..
Part of the problem is that these comments are in response to changes that Thomas made to my work without any comment on his part. There are no commit comments explaining any of that, because he rewrote my work before committing it. So, if we were to put all of this back and forth into hatari's commit history, it seems like counter-productive noise to me.
I am willing to do the work to restructure this, but I need guidance as to what you want to see. Part of that is that I think the PR should be reviewed and discussed before proceeding in that respect.
-- Brad