On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:56:50 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth at cworth.org> wrote:
> Otherwise, the patches up to this point in the thread have all either
> been pushed or I've asked for some additional information (perhaps
> that's just this patch and the "old style fcc dirs" patch?).

Great!  That's really great news, Carl.  Thank you very much.  I think
at this point the only thing we need for 0.6 are:

* Austin's atomicity patches
* maybe fix the frc822 handling issue

Can we set a target date for 0.6 release?  So we'll all start feeling
really bad if we miss it?

> I'm actually a bit surprised to see myself preferring patches in
> email. When Linus first wrote git, I couldn't understand why the Linux
> community kept to such a consistent culture of sending patches via
> email. It seemed so backwards to do these awkward machinations (git
> format-patch, git send-email, SMTP, MUA, git am), and risk all the
> problems of email clients corrupting patches, etc.?especially when git
> has such clean mechanisms for reliably moving patches around (git push,
> git pull).

Yeah, I'm with you that I'm surprised by liking this method as well.  I
think it only really works once most of the bulk of things are already
working, but for bug fixes and feature additions it really works well.
It's nice to have comments for patches on list.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available

Reply via email to