On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Shadura <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 23:59, Thomas De Schampheleire (no-reply) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Same as v1, but with better commit msgs and an extra patch to fix test >> interdependency. Also, as requested, changes made on a branch. > > Acttually, I disagree with Mads' opinion on branches: > 1) The end result will be on the branch default (or stable, depending > on what sort of changes it is) anyway > 2) If the PR doesn't require any more work, it can be simply pulled if > it's on the right branch > 3) I can't say bookmarks don't provide the same visibility as named > branches do, but at least there can be just one bookmark with the said > name, which means it's always the most recent version of the PR.
For me, either approach is fine. Please fight it out and let me know ;-) > > In any case, I suggest not just closing old PR versions, but also > obsoleting them (for exampl, using rebase or histedit), so that the > old changesets don't hang around needlessly. Yes, in this case I used graft to move the changes to the original branch because I had top changes that shouldn't move, but I could have done it in two steps. I had now just pruned the original changes, but it seems you already did it on the server too. /Thomas _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
