| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 01:30:44PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> If the patch is automatedly filed against bugzilla, people will |
| 3 |
> assume viewing that patch tells them all they need to know. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> But the reality is somebody may rebase/amend/repush to the |
| 6 |
> publicised branch location before any developer reviews the patch in |
| 7 |
> bugzilla, and so by the time somebody reviews the patch, it is |
| 8 |
> already wrong. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is what I was trying to get at [1]. And I still think some sort |
| 11 |
of rate-limited posting of updated patches is the best way to handle |
| 12 |
it. Git remotes are more complete (signatures and committer info) and |
| 13 |
as current as you like while you're actively reviewing [2], and I |
| 14 |
expect the point of the attached patch is to provide an archival |
| 15 |
reference that folks can refer to after GitHub (or whoever's hosting |
| 16 |
the remote) closes down. In that case, having the attached patch |
| 17 |
occasionally lag by a week (or whatever) is not going to be a big |
| 18 |
deal. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Cheers, |
| 21 |
Trevor |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[1]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/97329/focus=97333 |
| 24 |
Message-ID: <20150912213111.GB14809@××××××××××××.us> |
| 25 |
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/97329/focus=97333 |
| 26 |
Message-ID: <20150912210734.GA14809@××××××××××××.us> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 30 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives