Re: [PATCH] subtree/Makefile: Standardize (esp. for packagers)

From: James Denholm <nod.helm@gmail.com>
Date: May 3, 2014, 12:56 UTC
Message-ID: <CAHYYfeGNO5QknoKkZfYy3XLNRZsVmf0WjeNGkDxH3QwPF-RsUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140430032045.GA4613@comcast.net>

Matthew Ogilvie <mmogilvi_git@miniinfo.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:35:13PM +1000, James Denholm wrote:
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> Agreed.  It also doesn't help that when subtree patches are proposed
> (especially new features instead of obvious bugs), there often seems
> to be little or no feedback from anyone.
>
> --------
> Depending on how much time you have:
>
> This may be outside the scope of work you were planning on,

While current, immediate focus is really just getting the makefile fixed up and hopefully then have more people package subtree by default, overall I'll very likely extend that to general work on subtree and such.

Show 13 quoted lines

>                                                                                          but
> it might be worth grepping through old mailing list archives for
> "subtree" patches that haven't been merged, and see if there is
> anything worth revisiting/resubmitting.  I believe most of the
> following (at least) kind of languished and died, often with little
> or no real review and feedback:
>
> (...)
>
> (I don't know if these are the latest or "best" versions of these, nor
> have I really looked at them closely to decide if they are worth
> including at all.  Be sure to exameine not just the discussion around
> the specific patches, but also the other patches in each series...)

Yeah, certainly, I'll be sure to have a sticky-beak. Thanks for pointing those out!

Regards, James Denholm.