Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Ah, yes, I misspoke. It should be either an incremental diff or in-line comment to spell out what got changed as a response to the patch. I find myself fixing the title the most often, which is part of the "log message" you pointed out that would not convey well with the "incremental diff" approach. -- 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