On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:33:12AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I disagree, however, with the suggestion to sift through your `pu` branch > > and to somehow replace local branches with the commits found there. > > To be more in line with the "e-mailed patch" workflow, I think what I should > do is to send the version I queued with fixups back to the list as follow-up. > Just like reviewers review, the maintainer reviews and queues, the original > author should be able to work in the same workflow, i.e. reading and applying > an improved version of the patch from her mailbox. Leaving aside Dscho's questions of whether pulling patches from email is convenient for most submitters (it certainly is for me, but I recognize that it is not for many), I would much rather see incremental fixup patches from you than whole "here's what I queued" responses. The reason is that your fixups may not be the only ones needed. There may be others on the list that come before or after, and I may even have already made fixes locally for "v2" that haven't been on the list. If I haven't made any changes yet, I can throw out my topic, start with what you queued, and then apply other changes incrementally. But if I have, then I need to convert yours to a diff, which requires checking out the same base, applying yours, and running diff. Much easier to get the diff in the first place. :) That only covers changes to the code, though. It does not help with fixups to commit messages. It would be neat to have a microformat for specifying and applying patches to commit messages. -Peff -- 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