Re: Rietveld workflow problems

[Peekay Ex]

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Peekay Ex <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, address@hidden
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I run into the same problem from time to time -
>>> I recently sent an e-mail to the list about a 1-line patch to fix
>>> kneed beams that I needed to apply for other work.
>>
>> So, and this is a genuine question, why do you need to make a tiny
>> patch so that a (next) larger patch works. Why not include the tiny
>> patch in your larger patch (if that makes sense)?
>
> Because it doesn't make sense to combine unrelated patches in that
> manner.  You can't find them in the history then, and if the large patch
> gets applied or reverted, the independent small patch has to go along.
>
>> And without wishing to sound rude rude, are we just blaming the tool
>> here for 'your preference' of work flow?
>
> I prefer not editing tarballs as a means of source control, so git comes
> in quite handy.  Of _course_ it is the task of tools to support
> preferable work flows.  Now "generally preferable" is more important
> than "individually preferred", and the list is the place where one would
> argue the general merit of one's preferences.
>
> So rude or not, I don't see the point in chastising Mike for explaining
> his personal preferences and their reasons to the discussion.

There was no chastisement, the point I was trying to make is it seemed
to me that some of the devs were trying to shoehorn a workflow into a
'system' (that being how we track and review patches) that they are
not designed for.

As to it being an unrelated patch - how can it be unrelated if it is
required in the first place for the 'next' patch to apply correctly?
That sounds 'related' to me.

Again perhaps I am being too simplistic but if I make change to file A
for Patch A and then I make a new Patch B which also includes file A
change (from a new base) but also add file B does it matter that I
have two patches that have the same file A? Doesn't it just overwrite
the file with the same information (i.e. no change). Then if I want
also to make Patch C (for something different to Patch B) but it also
requires file A then, again can I just not just make Patch C with File
A and File C and I'm still ok?

Anyway, I'll shush now.

I wasn't trying to start an argument I was just trying to get a perspective.

James