Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: >>> == Timeline == >> >> The one thing I worry about is that you are proposing to wait a while >> before submitting your changes upstream. I would suggest pushing >> whatever pieces work to contrib/ early on to get more feedback from >> reviewers and testers. (I am saying this selfishly, as a potential >> tester.) > > I would rather have frequent updates about the progress on the mailing > list, and a long-running branch in which the code is developed, only > rebasing to Junio's next/pu when absolutely necessary. You are usually right about this kind of thing, so I will not disagree too strongly. But I will say: I think this was a mistake in the git sequencer project. Stephan did excellent work both on and off list, and I think it is a shame that as little of his code reached mainline by the end of the summer as did. I imagine that submitting bit by bit would have required a different approach: maybe a sequencer--helper that would gradually grow to absorb more of the functionality of the prototype script. Harder, but the result would be working code. Now it is hard enough to merge current master into the sequencer branch... Whether to use stable topic branches or rebased-against-master patch series as the means of submission is a decision that matters less to me. (I prefer the former.) > After all, it would be additional work to put it first into contrib/ and > then to integrate it fully into git.git. I am not sure I understand this point. Are you saying the change in filenames would be problematic? Curious, Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html