On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:05:09 -0700
Leo Gaspard wrote:
Hey Leo,
> Actually, I'd think if you give people push access to their patch branch
> it may be easier for them than having to export a patch and update the
> wiki: they already rebase the patches for themselves, they would just
> have to git
On 07/01/2016 08:39 PM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:49:34 -0700
> Ben Woolley wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Remember, git was originally created to solve the problem of concurrently
>> managing many large patch sets from distributed sources. Isn't that the
>> problem here?
>
> it's always the s
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:49:34 -0700
Ben Woolley wrote:
Hey Ben,
> Late reply to this, but I favor the git branch approach as you suggest.
> It is already a dependency, so why not use it for its intended purpose?
>
> The great thing about a branch is that it is easy to use the version the
> patch
Late reply to this, but I favor the git branch approach as you suggest. It is
already a dependency, so why not use it for its intended purpose?
The great thing about a branch is that it is easy to use the version the patch
is for, and update as desired. The tools to manage the use cases around
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 01:54:13PM -0800, Britton Kerin wrote:
>> I'm not going to try to fix patches I don't use myself, it's possible
>> to screw up and testing is a hassle since it involves the wm.
>
> I wonder what the odds are of a patch a
