Le 17 août 2025 04:17:30 GMT+02:00, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> a écrit :

>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.  This
>takes more time.  Worse, it often incentivizes maintainers to just
>sigh and accept the merge request, even though it's cr*p.

I really don't understand that argument. Pulling the MR changes from gitlab 
into a local branch is 2 git commands that can be copy/pasted from the MR page 
and you get started on a git tree immediately.

You're free to do whatever you like with the changes then, no more or less than 
with a patch file. And you get all the benefits from it being in git like 
having multiple commits, commit messages…

(And if you happen to git merge that branch, gitlab will mark the MR as merged 
automatically when you push.)


Haply hacking,
--
Aurélien

Reply via email to