Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
I don't think there's any reason that newcomers should need more
iterations than regulars to finish a patch. Regulars are actually
held to a higher standard, so they are likely to need more iterations.
A common mistake for newcomers, that I haven't
On 2014-12-03 03.20, Stefan Beller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
It seems like a few desirable features are being talked about here, and
summarizing the discussion as centralized vs decentralized
From: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:28 AM
On 11/21/2014 07:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
I don't think that those iterations changed anything substantial
that
overlaps with my version, but TBH it's such a
Editing text files isn't that hard, we do it all the time.
It is not indeed. But doing it all over again and again is hard and error prone.
I did re-read the man page on git format-patch and found the --notes
option, which I am going to try
to use in my workflow. That way I only need to update
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
It seems like a few desirable features are being talked about here, and
summarizing the discussion as centralized vs decentralized is too
simplistic. What is really
Stefan Beller wrote:
How are non-regulars/newcomers, who supposingly need more iterations on
a patch, supposed to handle the inter patch change log conveniently?
I think this is one of the more important issues.
I don't think there's any reason that newcomers should need more
iterations than
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
It seems like a few desirable features are being talked about here, and
summarizing the discussion as centralized vs decentralized is too
simplistic. What is really important?
1. Convenient and efficient, including for newcomers
2. Usable while
From: Matthieu Moy matthieu@grenoble-inp.fr
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
[]
Let me list the aspects of our mailing list workflow that I find
cumbersome as a contributor and reviewer:
* Submitting patches to the mailing list is an
On 11/27/2014 06:46 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
[]
Let me list the aspects of our mailing list workflow that I find
cumbersome as a contributor and reviewer:
* Submitting patches to the mailing list is an ordeal of configuring
format-patch
On 11/27/2014 11:53 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de wrote:
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
[...]
In short:
We can ask every contributor, if the patch send to the mailing list
is available on a public Git-repo, and what the branch name is,
like _V2.. Does
On 14-11-28 09:31 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
On 11/27/2014 06:46 PM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
[]
Let me list the aspects of our mailing list workflow that I find
cumbersome as a contributor and reviewer:
* Submitting patches to the mailing
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 04:34:09PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
My ideal would be to invert the procedure. Let the patches in a public
Git repository somewhere be the primary artifact, and let the review
process be focused there. Let email be an alternative interface to the
central review
A bot could subscribe to the list and create branches in a public repo.
(This idea feels familiar -- didn't somebody attempt this already?)
Thomas Rast maintains git notes that link git commits to their gmane
discussion, you can get them with
[remote mailnotes]
url =
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
[]
Let me list the aspects of our mailing list workflow that I find
cumbersome as a contributor and reviewer:
* Submitting patches to the mailing list is an ordeal of configuring
format-patch and send-email and getting everything just right, using
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de writes:
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
[]
Let me list the aspects of our mailing list workflow that I find
cumbersome as a contributor and reviewer:
* Submitting patches to the mailing list is an ordeal of configuring
format-patch and
Torsten Bögershausen tbo...@web.de wrote:
On 2014-11-25 01.28, Michael Haggerty wrote:
* Or I save the emails to a temporary directory (awkward because, Oh
Horror, I use Thunderbird and not mutt as email client), hope that I've
guessed the right place to apply them, run git am, and later
On 11/21/2014 07:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
I don't think that those iterations changed anything substantial that
overlaps with my version, but TBH it's such a pain in the ass working
with patches in email that I don't think I'll go to the
17 matches
Mail list logo
