Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Unless a patch is about an area you are super familiar with so that you >> know what is beyond the context of the patch to be able to judge if the >> change is good in the context of the file being touched, it is always >> hard to review from inside a mail reader. >> >> Running "git am" is a good first step to review such a patch, as that >> lets you view the resulting code with the full power of Git. As you >> gain experience on the codebase, you'll be able to spot more problems >> while in your mail reader. > > I am glad that you agree that the requirement to manually transform the > patches back into Git (where they had been originally to begin with) is > cumbersome. This is the first time that I see you admit it ;-) I was about to apologize for writing a statement that can be misread, but I do not think what I wrote can be misinterpreted, even if a reader deliberately tries to twist the words s/he reads, to lead to such a conclusion, so I won't. I merely said that reviewing a change in an unfamiliar area is harder (not "cumbersome", but "needs understanding first") with a patch, and it is easier to see changes in context by applying (which is an easy, not "cumbersome", process). -- 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