Hello, On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > Peekay Ex <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hello, >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, [email protected] >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> For what it's worth, I run into the same problem from time to time - >>> I recently sent an e-mail to the list about a 1-line patch to fix >>> kneed beams that I needed to apply for other work. >> >> So, and this is a genuine question, why do you need to make a tiny >> patch so that a (next) larger patch works. Why not include the tiny >> patch in your larger patch (if that makes sense)? > > Because it doesn't make sense to combine unrelated patches in that > manner. You can't find them in the history then, and if the large patch > gets applied or reverted, the independent small patch has to go along. > >> And without wishing to sound rude rude, are we just blaming the tool >> here for 'your preference' of work flow? > > I prefer not editing tarballs as a means of source control, so git comes > in quite handy. Of _course_ it is the task of tools to support > preferable work flows. Now "generally preferable" is more important > than "individually preferred", and the list is the place where one would > argue the general merit of one's preferences. > > So rude or not, I don't see the point in chastising Mike for explaining > his personal preferences and their reasons to the discussion.
There was no chastisement, the point I was trying to make is it seemed to me that some of the devs were trying to shoehorn a workflow into a 'system' (that being how we track and review patches) that they are not designed for. As to it being an unrelated patch - how can it be unrelated if it is required in the first place for the 'next' patch to apply correctly? That sounds 'related' to me. Again perhaps I am being too simplistic but if I make change to file A for Patch A and then I make a new Patch B which also includes file A change (from a new base) but also add file B does it matter that I have two patches that have the same file A? Doesn't it just overwrite the file with the same information (i.e. no change). Then if I want also to make Patch C (for something different to Patch B) but it also requires file A then, again can I just not just make Patch C with File A and File C and I'm still ok? Anyway, I'll shush now. I wasn't trying to start an argument I was just trying to get a perspective. James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
