2009/1/15 Murray Cumming <[email protected]>: > On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 16:08 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: >> On the kernel, for example, patches tend to be independent in the >> sense that each change is atomic and would be justified on its own >> accord; however, a patch series tends to lean toward achieving an >> aggregate objective. This scenario tends to apply to implementing new >> features that touches many pieces. > > I guess this kind of workflow just doesn't match the projects I work on, > or how I work, though it seems to be very comfortable for other people. > I then wish there was some way to group commits together to say "these > are useful separately, but together they also achieve foo". Then I could > choose to just look at the big-picture stuff.
You can send a cover letter (patch 0/n of the series) that explains the big-picture and the whole diffstat (with the --cover-letter flag of "git format-patch"). Unfortunately this is not saved anywhere. Santi _______________________________________________ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
