----- Carlos R. Mafra <crma...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 at 16:34:35 +0200, Christophe wrote: > > Carlos, > > > > As this series of replace-patches may be a little bit to replace > > because of conflicts created by dependancies, would it make your like > > easier if I'd send a tgz with all patches on #next after 4e70bdb5 ? > > I confess I'm still confused by your previous series with many > diff- and replace- versions and I'm not sure what to do. > > To be honest, I prefer to apply the diffs and rebase the tree myself > in case the diff is small enough to merge into the original patch.
I would tend to prefer this method too, the limit I had being that I was not certain of my method for generating the diffs. Now that I have a simple and clean way, I can re-propose cleanly generated diffs. Please note that there's still the case on commits split in 2/3 (manageable with multiple patchs) and some conflits that will arise while applying them (for example because magick, webp and ppm improvements touches same files) > When the diff is not small, I think it's ok to have both the original > patch and the fix. That is more "honest" from the point of view > of authorship. In fact, I can only praise your efforts to improve > those patches and suggest them to be rebased. > > But from a pratical point of view, I prefer if you just send the > diffs and let me rebase (if you state it's ok to do so). Would that > be ok to you? Would it mean less or more work from your reference > frame? I will submit a new set of rebasable diffs, but not all at once to make sure I do not skip any info about what you're to expect when applying them. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
