[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: serial lines -- a proposal

From: Filippo Giunchedi
Subject: Re: serial lines -- a proposal
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:25:20 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 05:20:35PM -0600, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> I assume it's optional to add that hook?  It poses problems when
> following the workflow of creating a lot of small patches and then
> rebasing them down before pushing - the serial changes will cause lots
> spurious conflicts on just about every rebase.

ah, very true!

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:45:28PM -0600, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
> I think that the first option is probably the ideal, but as has been
> discussed we'll forget, a lot.  The latter two options could form a
> "backstop" against forgotten set-serial runs, though.  Alternately, a
> post-hook that *checks* but does not *change* serials, and rejects
> commits that do not adequately update the serial, would also keep us
> forgetful kids in line.  But it's more work.

I would definitely go for the hook that checks and rejects the push if serials
are not updated then.

Filippo Giunchedi - - 0x6B79D401

I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the
set, I go into the other room and read a book.
-- Groucho Marx

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]