"Theodore Ts'o" <ty...@mit.edu> writes: > In some cases, if it's a patch sent via e-mail, I'll just fix up the > patch and then let the contributor know that they failed to do error > checking, or their patch had a buffer overrun and result in a security > vulnerability etc. But with a merge request, all I can do is explain > what they did wrong, and ask them to resubmit the merge request.
Not looking to argue the main point (90% of everything is crud, and i dont think anyone things every contribution must be accepted), but this statement confused me: the merge request is already in git, so i dont understand why people think it is harder to use than a patch attached to an email? you can check out a merge request and amend or cherry pick commits. you could even run git diff and pipe the result into a patch and use whatever existing workflow works for the bts?
