Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Accommodate for pu having been renamed to seen
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jul 1, 2020, 10:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2007011241560.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqpn9gee2l.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Hi Junio,
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 32 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > >> You could have just told me that the fixup queued on 'seen' looks > >> good to you and squash it in the first step instead to save one > >> roundtrip, but replacing with a new set of three patches is not so > >> bad, either ;-) > > > > To be honest, the GitGitGadget-based workflow makes it quicker for me to > > just submit a new iteration. > > I do not mind seeing a new iteration that gives easier time for > others to comment on the version that is closer to the final than > the previous round. The offer was only for contributors who find > it easier to just say "yeah, I am happy with that change" than > submitting a new round. > > > In fact, I did not even see your fixup until I read your mail. > > This I actually would mind a bit more. The reason why I publish > 'seen' is to make it easier for authors of individual topics how > their work would play with other topics in flight, and it diminishes > the value of it if contributors do not pay attention to what is > queued there. I expect contributors to fetch and look at what is > queued in origin/seen. > > There may be evil merges that reveal subtle interactions between > topics, some of which may involve the topic an author may care > about. There may be fixups for problems that were not found during > review but only found during the integration process. I try to > communicate these back on the list when possible, but the thing is, > a day does not have sufficient number of minutes for me to always do > so.
I understand. And I am trying my best to accommodate.
Ciao, Dscho
> > Thanks. >