FWIW, I think folks in the ZFS on Linux project have done something similar to
the "use two branches" technique.. i.e. they open the first pull request,
iterate with comments, and follow up patches, but *don't* force update to
ensure the history is intact.. then when the patch as a whole is in a good
state, the original pull request is closed, and a new one is opened that
references back to the old one (in case people want to see the full history).
Then the process is repeated, but since the bulk of the discussion already
happen, this new pull request should be much cleaner; and might just be a
couple of "LGTM" comments and nothing else.
Just an idea, I think we're all open to whatever workflow works best and makes
collaboration the most productive.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/26#issuecomment-151932480
_______________________________________________
developer mailing list
developer@open-zfs.org
http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
