[ditz-talk] [Ditz-talk] [PATCH] Improve automatic documentation and checking of command arguments.
nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 17:44:02 EDT 2008
Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Wed Apr 09 21:44:39 +0200 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).
Ok I will try this way then. I should be able to propose some shell
completion support for commands, issue names, components, and releases hoping
you'll like it!
> Moral of the story: keep changes on branches, and rebase is your friend.
Moral git is a lot more complicated than needed (reads it: "darcs is better").
> > BTW I've just made such a merge request on gitorious.
> Got it!
PS: darcs2 has been released! It's time to (re-)give a try!
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ditz-talk/attachments/20080409/7adad1de/attachment.bin
More information about the ditz-talk