On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM Ladislav Michl <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:39:57PM +0000, Ivan Vučica wrote: > > ...and now actually attaching the patches before the Debian pastes expire. > > Hmm, sending all the patches inline as a patch serie with nice cover letter > was a matter of single patman invocation and it was not done on the purpose. > Debian paste have 90 days expiration and that should be enough for patches > to land in some git repo. I'll create github fork myself in the worst case :)
I think archiving the patches on the mailing list makes sense. For example, I did not get around to reviewing this patch this weekend. I recall trying to dig Sergio's patches last time I wanted to try them out being troublesome in some way. A GitHub fork will mildly help merging this (if you happen to be a GitHub user), but I would personally be fine with patches, so whatever you prefer. GitHub PR would help multiple people take a look at the patch, too; I'd have created one anyway. > > uto, 7. sij 2020. u 21:38 Ivan Vučica <[email protected]> napisao je: > > > > > FYI this ended up in spam for me. Not sure why. > > > > > > This is super exciting! Looking forward to taking some time to merge this. > > > > > > I've attached the patches for archival purposes, and will take a look at > > > updating the forked tree. We will definitely want the copyright assignment > > > to FSF; Sergio mentioned he did the assignment in an email dated > > > 2016-12-04. > > I started copyright assignment process and will notify you once done. > Meanwhile > we can probably prepare merge, but I'm unsure how to proceed. My suggestion > is to squash patches into single one (once polished as it still have issues) > as I see no point to merge nonfunctional change and fix it with incremental > patches. I hope it is sane way as Sergio is the principal author and the rest > is just simple polishment. I would prefer to merge multiple changes in this instance, to better preserve historical authorship information. > > Sergio could comment on this: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnustep-dev/2018-02/msg00006.html > (Hmm, now I realize this discussion should probably happen on gnustep-dev > list) I somehow missed that reply from Richard. :-(
