[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] bidi patch

From: Uwe Brauer
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] bidi patch
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 16:41:39 +0000
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)

   > 2016-09-17 18:14 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer <address@hidden>:

   > Did you take a look to the file you sent?

Usually I do, but since I had so many problems with that format, it
might have escaped that check.

   > [...]

   > diff --git a/export.patch b/export.patch
   > new file mode 100644
   > --- /dev/null
   > +++ b/export.patch
   > @@ -0,0 +1,126 @@

   > [...]

   > diff --git a/export2.patch b/export2.patch
   > new file mode 100644
   > --- /dev/null
   > +++ b/export2.patch
   > @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@

   > [...]


   > It's not a matter of workflow, or git, or hg-git, you committed two
   > patches files lying in your workspace.  That would be an error even
   > with hg ;-)

Ok point taken,[1] but what is with the issue of sending patches with
correspond to my private branches but might include (for you) unwanted
revsets? That is not acceptable? I should collapse them? 

   > I have to read two or more threads to discover where the latest
   > version of patch is and of which patch.  If you don't open a new
   > thread for each patch or to tell to ignore another patch I can just
   > read your latest message with an attachment in order to review a
   > specific patch.  A thread named "patch with improved commit message"
   > doesn't really tell me what the patch is about, and I have to read the
   > thread to find whether it's the latest version of the patch for
   > style/bidi.el (and discover that it is not).  Please stick with one
   > thread per patch.

   > Bye,
   > Mosè

[1]  I see hg facing the same fate as Xemacs, beautiful but not preferred
     by most users....

reply via email to

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