On 10/26/2010 04:47 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:26:13 -0400
Adam Young<ayo...@redhat.com>  wrote:

I'll admit this would be useful, but it would be another process that
we don't have now, that I was trying to avoid.  We all have git repos
on fedorapeople.  The trick is to deal with patches that have to get
changed prior to commit, hence the numbering of -2 -3 after the seq
Not sure what's the problem here, if I rebase a patch you have the
latest one in my tree, no need to look for -1 -2 -3 as you can't be
wrong if you re-fetch from my tree.

Yes, and if we go with a Git based appraoch, that would be fine. But the team seems to havea preference and a system in place that works with straight patches. I am not trying to change that. If you are set on a Git based approach, it is a more significant change from our current process, something that I would not advocate this close to a major release.

I'm just trying to codify what Rob, Endi and I are already doing, and which seems to work well.

Really, the seq number is not needed, but makes a nice ready
shorthand for the patch.  Pavel, Endi and I often refer to patches by
number, like "your patch 0019"  which makes it handy.  The increasing
seq approach to detect a missing packet works in TCP, so why not for
Because I am not a machine :)

I disagree.  So does schoolhouse rock:

I see we constantly fail at correctly numbering sequentially stuff,
from new error numbers to OIDs and other stuff, so I do not see this as
a big improvement. I am not saying people shouldn't use this method if
so they prefer, but mandating it seems a bit too much.
It seems to be easy enough to do.

Of course if others strongly feel this is the way to go, I will (try to)

Let's give it a go  for a few.


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to