Re: [Caml-list] Trivial compiler patches

["François Bobot" <francois.bobot@cea.fr>]

On 27/03/2014 10:34, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:16:48PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> I have to say that a number of projects I've been involved with have
>> rejected github pulls as a method of working on patches.  I think the
>> main reasons are:
>>
>>  - A mailing list allows you to use your regular editor when
>>    commenting.
>>
>>  - A mailing list provides a text-based, open archive of historical
>>    discussions of patches.
> 
> And makes it hard to follow or later trace the developement due to the
> amount of intermixed mails.
> 
> Rebasing a patch set for every change also makes it hard to follow
> since rebase destroys history. So far revision control systems lack
> that extra dimension needed to track the developement of a patch set
> over time.

One way is to not rebase during the review process, add the modification on top and rebase at the
end of the review process. The autosquashing feature of git makes that quite simple, "git commit
[--fixup|--squash]", since that allows to record which commit is fixed. You can look at
https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/22 for an idea (the commit are prefixed with "fixup!").

-- 
François