On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> So I left that proposal on its branch. Since this was mentioned, I have a question about fossil development etiquette. In the last couple of days, I have had some time and have made a few fixes and (in my opinion) improvements. Each one is really a small change that stands on its own. As you see in the timeline, my approach was to put each one in a new branch, all named "pending-review", with the description only in the commit message. I figured that that way they were easy to accept or reject individually, were clearly marked as a small change ready to merge, and if rejected can be closed so as not to keep multiple open leafs with the same branch name for too long. Is this approach bothersome since there are for a short time multiple leafs of the same name? Would it be nicer to give each branch a unique name and either tag them as ready-for-merge, or say so here? -- ˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
_______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
