You can keep doing it how you are, I was just letting you know that there's a more robust preferred method. They're all allowed. But if you're going to stick with email, a git repo that I could pull from is better than emailed patches for me at least. Less errors.
Cheers, Karl P Filip Moc <d...@moc6.cz> wrote: > Hi Karl, > > > FWIW, it's easier for me to work with patches from github, though > > feel welcome to keep sending patches via mail. > > I'm sure you might find it easier to work with patches on > github and I'd be glad to make things easier for you. But I > would rather not register there. I don't think any > registrations should be needed to send patches. And I don't > know any way to send patch to github without registration. Also > since it's now owned by Microsoft it is all the more reason to > keep away from it. > > Some projects are making use of Patchwork > (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/) it can parse patch from email > and allows you to manage it. Also you're not forced to run > Patchwork on some specific server, you can host your instance > anywhere you want. I think it's a good approach. You might want > to check it out if you're interested. > > I doubt there's any chance you don't already know this but just > in case: You can easily import patch from email using command > git am. > > Filip > > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:34:31PM -0000, Karl Palsson wrote: > > > > Thanks for this, It's been applied in 4b16af6e > > > > Thanks for the clear examples of where the values were wrong. > > Bright side, it's even smaller code than original buggy code :) > > > > FWIW, it's easier for me to work with patches from github, though > > feel welcome to keep sending patches via mail. > > > > Cheers, > > Karl P > >
signature.html
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
_______________________________________________ libopencm3-devel mailing list libopencm3-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
