On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 09:35:39 -0400, Philippe Blain wrote:
> I'm in favor of a change like the one you propose, thanks for working on this!
Thanks :) . Nice to know it'll be of use for others.
> The 'triangular' aka 'forking' workflow is, as you discovered, only explicitely
> mentioned in the description of '@{push}' [1]. 'gitworkflows(5)' is mostly about
> how the workflow used by the Git projet itself (from the description):
>
> This document attempts to write down and motivate some of the workflow
> elements used for git.git itself.
Ah, I missed that.
> Le 2021-07-28 à 22:01, Ben Boeckel a écrit :
> > v1 -> v2:
> > - removed `branch.defaultPushRemote` (`remote.pushDefault` covers this
> > case already)
> > - improved the commit message with more background and an expanation
> > of the intended uses
> >
>
> Small nit: usually when sending a second version of a patch, you would use
> the '-v2' argument to 'git format-patch' so that the patch and cover letter
> is prefixed [PATCH v2].
Yes, I realized that I had forgotten the `--reroll-count=` argument when
making this patch (I suppose a way to store the Cc list for a topic
somewhere would be nice so I didn't lean so heavily on shell history
would help this).
FWIW, my main gripe with the email-based workflow is the lack of
coordinated metadata (LWN has numerous comments by me about my views if
you're curious, but I should really formalize them into blog posts). But
when in Rome :) .
Thanks,
--Ben
