On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Patrick Bernaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - The point of reviewing code before integrating it in the main tree > is to avoid "modify-then-fix" has much as possible. Until the > changes are integrated you are free to tweak your patches, in this > case to take into account the comments from my message. > > As a result, what we are expecting is a single 'perfect' patch for > your patches 1 and 2.
Is this really necessary now that the repository is in git? You could have a mini-branch of patches no matter how egregious each individual change, as long as the final result is "perfect", and then *merge* that into master. This way master moves atomically from one "perfect" state to another "perfect" state, but the diff between the two states can still be decomposed into individual contributor patches (unlike CVS where you get only one big kilo-patch). Or is this use pattern discouraged (in gEDA)? My concern is that the flip side of the request for "perfect" patches is that it's quite inconvenient for the contributor to have to engage in the sort of Leninist rewriting of history that's required. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
