On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > What I've said is that the work is done in a separate branch (a feature > branch). Then, all that needs to be done is a merge to the main branch > seen as a single commit (e.g., for git, "git merge --no-ff"). That way, > one doesn't see the dirty work done in the feature branch, just the > merge. > you're describing a squash merge. that's also not what we want - we want *series* of clean patches (except in rare cases where a single atomic commit is indeed sufficient).
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Richard Russon
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Kevin J. McCarthy
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Richard Russon
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Kevin J. McCarthy
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Oswald Buddenhagen
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Vincent Lefevre
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Oswald Buddenhagen
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Vincent Lefevre
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Oswald Buddenhagen
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Vincent Lefevre
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Oswald Buddenhagen
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Vincent Lefevre
- Re: [PATCH 0 of 8] Change Mut... Oswald Buddenhagen
- Re: [PATCH 9 of 11] Change remailer to use mutt windows... Kevin J. McCarthy
- Re: [PATCH 10 of 11] Fix remaining direct usages of COL... Kevin J. McCarthy
- Re: [PATCH 11 of 11] Add cols parameter to mutt_FormatS... Kevin J. McCarthy