On 5 December 2016 at 18:27, J William Piggott <elseifthen@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/05/2016 06:51 AM, Karel Zak wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:25:45AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >>> I have various fixes to send, but I'll start small, with a couple of >>> fixes for nsenter(1). >> >> Applied ... but you have removed "See also.. " sentence from >> description of the --user. Would be better to keep there? >> >>> Is a git pull request compatible with your >>> workflow? >> >> Sure. > > Does this apply to all of us? We no longer need to submit patches to the > mailing list for peer review? IMHO in best case both emails & remote repository. I like emails because they end getting indexed by web search engines, and there is good change of finding why something was done after years has passed. Email stream is also nice to read. I do read all changes that come to this list although I might not say anything most about them. That said remote repositories has their nice sides. For example some of my commits are signed[1], while other are not[2]. Since mails do not have gpg signature it's pretty clear Karel is merging patches from both mailbox and my remote repository. Also testing is nicer when I can use someone's remote repository to pull their branch. [1] git show --show-signature 00971cca8a270b6e162c977182d134a64bbc914a [2] ^^ 0b404f0845fe97f84e45f9b7b23e9e1814d3ef4e -- Sami Kerola http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
