Merge requests seem reasonable if all goes well. My work flow is roughly: download the patch (URL plus ".patch") scan it maybe apply and test approve and merge
But things go downhill if I don't like something. What I get from James is an update to the MR, a patch to the patch. That makes reading/checking the patch harder and clutters up the git log. What if I don't like the description of a patch? Merge has an option to reduce all the patches to one. But often that isn't appropriate. git works so well for most things. I think I/we are missing something in the workflow. Should we be throwing away merges and making new ones rather than patching them? How do I backup a bunch of commits that turned into a MR so I can make them better and try again? I'm on a list or two where patches are distributed via email. git has several commands for that. Iterations usually have a v1 v2 ... as part of the Subject. Often individual parts will be approved. It's a lof of clutter in the email stream but the discussion gets archived in email rather than hidden over in a MR. Is there a way in gitlab to approve only one of the patches rather than all of them? I think I could do that by downloading the patch which is several email messages, editing out the one I want... Again, if that was the right thing to be doing, I'd expect git to support it which it probably does if you use their email mode. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org https://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel