On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 13:49 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 11:33 +0200, Sébastien Wilmet wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > Most developers are more familiar with the GitHub workflow, I > > > think > > > it's > > > an easier workflow than attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket. > > > Once > > > the contributor has pushed a branch on the fork repo, all the > > > rest > > > can > > > be done from the web interface by clicking on some buttons. > > > > I absolutely hate this workflow, fwiw. I prefer being able to run > > "git- > > bz" to both create and apply patches, rather than keeping a clone > > with > > a bunch of patches in my own org, or remembering the commands to > > push a > > repo to my own repo from the upstream clone. > > > > I hope there will be a git-bz equivalent available. > > By attaching a patch to a bugtracker ticket, we loose the information > of > the parent commit: where the commit has been initially created in the > git history. > > I've already had the problem that git-bz apply fails (there was a > conflict), while git was able to resolve automatically the conflict > when > rebasing the branch.
That's unsurprising. Presumably, the patch provider can easily rebase, as one probably should in case of conflict anyway. I don't see the gain here. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
