On Mar 07, 2011, at 06:31 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 12:04:18 -0500 >Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: >> On Mar 07, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: >> >> >If we can get to a mode where non-committers can push to a "fork" on >> >hg.python.org, we can dodge the patch format issue by having folks post >> >"pull requests" for that fork instaed. >> > >> >For the repoze and pylons projects, we have found the quality and >> >quantity of patches went up *significantly* when we made it easy for >> >somebody who doesn't work on the code all the time to use this workflow >> >(fork to a public repo, clone, hack, commit, push, request a pull). >> >> +1. 'Branches' are better than patches. > >How do you review a branch?
You can merge it locally and look at the diff. Or use Rietveld if that's supported. But the reason a branch is better is because it's easier to track the submitter's changes in response to your review comments, and it's easier to make changes to their branch and push an update for *them* to see. It's easier to have a ongoing conversation about a branch than a patch. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
