Johannes Schindelin <> writes:

> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Unless a patch is about an area you are super familiar with so that you
>> know what is beyond the context of the patch to be able to judge if the
>> change is good in the context of the file being touched, it is always
>> hard to review from inside a mail reader.
>> Running "git am" is a good first step to review such a patch, as that
>> lets you view the resulting code with the full power of Git.  As you
>> gain experience on the codebase, you'll be able to spot more problems
>> while in your mail reader.
> I am glad that you agree that the requirement to manually transform the
> patches back into Git (where they had been originally to begin with) is
> cumbersome. This is the first time that I see you admit it ;-)

I was about to apologize for writing a statement that can be
misread, but I do not think what I wrote can be misinterpreted, even
if a reader deliberately tries to twist the words s/he reads, to
lead to such a conclusion, so I won't.

I merely said that reviewing a change in an unfamiliar area is
harder (not "cumbersome", but "needs understanding first") with a
patch, and it is easier to see changes in context by applying (which
is an easy, not "cumbersome", process).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to