[ditz-talk] [Ditz-talk] [PATCH] Improve automatic documentation and checking of command arguments.

William Morgan wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net
Wed Apr 9 15:44:39 EDT 2008

Reformatted excerpts from nicolas.pouillard's message of 2008-04-09:
> I  prefer the email-patch approach,

I guess I have a mild preference for it too because I reviewing the
patches directly in email, but would rather lower the bar for
contributions than enforce a strict policy. And it's only a mild

> but as I understand it, if you don't apply it  quickly I we will have
> to 'rebase' it and then loose the fact that we have the  same  patch.

Actually, here's what I just discovered. If your email-submitted patches
are kept on a separate branch (i.e. not applied directly to the tracking
branch), and you pull your tracking branch to get remote changes and
then rebase the submitted branch against that, the patches that were
applied to the remote branch will become empty and the rebase will drop

So there's no change duplication that way. Of course, if you just merge,
the duplicates will appear in both places (except for some
fast-forwarding behavior).

Moral of the story: keep changes on branches, and rebase is your friend.

> BTW I've just made such a merge request on gitorious.

Got it!

William <wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net>

More information about the ditz-talk mailing list