[ditz-talk] [Ditz-talk] [PATCH] Improve automatic documentation and checking of command arguments.
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
Moral of the story: keep changes on branches, and rebase is your friend.
> BTW I've just made such a merge request on gitorious.
William <wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net>
More information about the ditz-talk