Re: [PATCH 0/1] Improve automatic setup of tracking for new branches
- From
Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 30, 2021, 13:57 UTC
- Message-ID
- <YQQFWtKo8b1WJIGe@erythro.dev.benboeckel.internal>
- In-Reply-To
- <9b8b3a12-6801-1c5d-9cfb-c87b51cd9548@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 09:35:39 -0400, Philippe Blain wrote:
> I'm in favor of a change like the one you propose, thanks for working on this!
Thanks :) . Nice to know it'll be of use for others.
Show 6 quoted lines
> The 'triangular' aka 'forking' workflow is, as you discovered, only explicitely
> mentioned in the description of '@{push}' [1]. 'gitworkflows(5)' is mostly about
> how the workflow used by the Git projet itself (from the description):
>
> This document attempts to write down and motivate some of the workflow
> elements used for git.git itself.Ah, I missed that.
Show 11 quoted lines
> Le 2021-07-28 à 22:01, Ben Boeckel a écrit : > > v1 -> v2: > > - removed `branch.defaultPushRemote` (`remote.pushDefault` covers this > > case already) > > - improved the commit message with more background and an expanation > > of the intended uses > > > > Small nit: usually when sending a second version of a patch, you would use > the '-v2' argument to 'git format-patch' so that the patch and cover letter > is prefixed [PATCH v2].
Yes, I realized that I had forgotten the `--reroll-count=` argument when making this patch (I suppose a way to store the Cc list for a topic somewhere would be nice so I didn't lean so heavily on shell history would help this).
FWIW, my main gripe with the email-based workflow is the lack of coordinated metadata (LWN has numerous comments by me about my views if you're curious, but I should really formalize them into blog posts). But when in Rome :) .
Thanks,
--Ben