On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Julien Rioux wrote: > On 04/10/2011 3:04 PM, Colin Campbell wrote: >> On 11-10-04 02:48 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote: >>> Hey all, >>> >>> I uploaded a couple patches to Rietveld this morning just to have >>> clean diffs with current master (my bazillion commits on my local >>> branch won't apply to current master anymore). I then download this >>> diff and run the regtests. However, with the new git cl, James sees >>> patch_new and also runs the regtests. Thus, he may be running failing >>> retgetsts that I haven't been able to check yet. I think that the new >>> git cl should ask the uploader if she wants a patch to be labeled >>> patch new instead of doing it automatically so that James doesn't run >>> regtests on patches that could be buggy. Thoughts? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> MS >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> How about patch status of "WIP", for "work in progress", or we could >> have the patch status default to needs-work, with the onus on the >> developer to set it to patch-new when it's ready to be checked? >> >> Cheers, >> Colin >> > > I guess most of us don't have any privilege to change this status on > googlepage. Moreover, it seems to me that Mike's use-case was simply to store > his patch somewhere while he fiddled with his local git repository, with the > intention to reapply his patch later, but not to make it public. I am no git > expert, but I am fairly certain that this can be handled completely locally > by learning a few git commands.
I just looked into it - you're right. It's: git diff master..HEAD Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
