From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/1] git-multimail: a replacement for post-receive-email Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:02:45 +0200 Message-ID: <517445E5.3080304@alum.mit.edu> References: <1366541380-10786-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <20130421105612.GA28959@elie.Belkin> <7vhaizu3j5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, Chris Hiestand , Marc Branchaud , Matthieu Moy , Michiel Holtkamp , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_N=E4we?= , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0_Bjarmas?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?on?= To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 21 22:03:00 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UU0TS-0001lL-68 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:02:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754369Ab3DUUCy (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:02:54 -0400 Received: from ALUM-MAILSEC-SCANNER-4.MIT.EDU ([18.7.68.15]:65327 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754315Ab3DUUCx (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:02:53 -0400 X-AuditID: 1207440f-b7f0e6d000000957-3b-517445ec2553 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id EE.BB.02391.CE544715; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.69.140] (p4FDD49D6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.221.73.214]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id r3LK2jpP012994 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:02:49 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 In-Reply-To: <7vhaizu3j5.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrFKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqPvGtSTQoOOzisXaZ3eYLK6dXMxi sbe7k9Wi60o3k0VD7xVmi7c3lzBaXPq8ntWi8UmRxfuz/5kdOD3O7V3I4rFz1l12j4lfjrN6 XLyk7PF5k5zHgcuP2QLYorhtkhJLyoIz0/P07RK4MzY1sBWs4qpYtvg6SwNjN0cXIyeHhICJ xOnNXSwQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBC4zSkxZ8ZQJwjnPJLHz5jZWkCpeAW2JTxvXMIHYLAKqEss3 /GAHsdkEdCUW9TSDxUUFwiRWrV/GDFEvKHFy5hOwDSICahIT2w6xgAxlFljJLLHh7GywocIC /hKrT19kgdg2mVFi5c8/YFM5Bcwk/jzpZgOxmQV0JN71PWCGsOUltr+dwzyBUWAWkiWzkJTN QlK2gJF5FaNcYk5prm5uYmZOcWqybnFyYl5eapGuiV5uZoleakrpJkZIXPDvYOxaL3OIUYCD UYmHt+BHUaAQa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYlUd7vTiWBQnxJ+SmVGYnFGfFFpTmpxYcYJTiYlUR4fdiA crwpiZVVqUX5MClpDhYlcV71Jep+QgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkZDg4lCV4jYPwLCRalpqdWpGXm lCCkmTg4QYZzSYkUp+alpBYllpZkxIOiNb4YGK8gKR6gvZ4g7bzFBYm5QFGI1lOMuhwrrzx5 zSjEkpeflyolzpsGUiQAUpRRmge3ApYEXzGKA30szBsIUsUDTKBwk14BLWECWvKZuxBkSUki QkqqgVFdlXlxw1W9o7vn3jtj51Wwo//QcR5Xe7bCioXpO1nfHAo8/1x5/uzt4s+/ Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 04/21/2013 08:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jonathan Nieder writes: > >> My personal preference is that patches come on the git list, are >> reviewed here, and then go to your fork of the Git project that Junio >> can periodically pull from at your request (like git-svn). But of >> course this is up to you, too. > > And also me ;-) > > Yes, I very much prefer the way how git-svn is managed. Let me see if I understand what that means: * I maintain my own Git clone * Patches to git-multimail would go to the Git mailing list like patches to other patches to the Git project, but I would be the one to git-am them, monitor discussion, help with review, etc. I would presumably apply the patches near your master (or near maint when necessary). * When I think a batch of patches is ready, I merge them to my master and publish my master somewhere. (Or is it better I publish the feature branch and leave it to you to merge directly to your master?) Then I send a merge request to you and the Git mailing list with the URL and SHA-1 of the branch that I would like you to merge. That seems very workable. What is your preference regarding the history to date? Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/