Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Reinhold Kainhofer writes: > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 15:04:05 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Reinhold Kainhofer writes: >> > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: >> >> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", >> >> supposedly a git-based

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

On 9/21/11 10:29 PM, "Janek Warchoł" wrote: > 2011/9/21 Carl Sorensen : >> >> Reviews in Google Code are done on branches, and each commit on the branch >> is visible and reviewable. >> > > Looks interesting, however i seem to be unable to add comments - > probably because i'm not a project me

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

2011/9/21 Carl Sorensen : > On 9/21/11 6:48 AM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" wrote: > >> Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: >>> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", >>> supposedly a git-based system similar to Rietveld. >> >> I looked at gerrit a

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 09:27:39AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote: > On 9/21/11 6:48 AM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" wrote: > > > I looked at gerrit a while ago. If you want to take a look at it: > > http://server.kainhofer.com:8088/ Gerrit is certainly an option, although I'm not encouraged by the discuss

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > The reason is that Rietveld just supports discussing and > improving a single patch/commit. > A counterexample More complicated sets can benefit from Reitveld's ability to load patch sets relative to different baselines

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:39:01AM +0100, Peekay Ex wrote: > 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)? Remember when you were first learning doc stuff,

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

On 9/21/11 6:48 AM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" wrote: > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", >> supposedly a git-based system similar to Rietveld. > > I looked at gerrit a while ago. If you want to take a

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

2011/9/21 David Kastrup : > Reinhold Kainhofer writes: >> In gerrit you really need to clean up your patches before you >> submit them for review. I typically have lots of small commits in a >> branch when I upload a patch to rietveld. git-cl will simply take the >> diff to origin/master (i.e. all

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Reinhold Kainhofer writes: > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 15:04:05 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Reinhold Kainhofer writes: >> > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: >> >> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", >> >> supposedly a git-based

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

2011/9/21 Reinhold Kainhofer : > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 15:04:05 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Reinhold Kainhofer writes: >> > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: >> >> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", >> >> supposedly a git-bas

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 15:04:05 schrieb David Kastrup: > Reinhold Kainhofer writes: > > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: > >> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", > >> supposedly a git-based system similar to Rietveld. > > >

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Reinhold Kainhofer writes: > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", >> supposedly a git-based system similar to Rietveld. > > I looked at gerrit a while ago. If you want to take a look at it: > http:/

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 10:52:37 schrieb David Kastrup: > Perhaps it would be nice if we found a way to play with "Gerrit", > supposedly a git-based system similar to Rietveld. I looked at gerrit a while ago. If you want to take a look at it: http://server.kainhofer.com:8088/ Here is a

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

2011/9/21 David Kastrup : > Reinhold Kainhofer writes: > >> Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 12:45:17 schrieb David Kastrup: >>> 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 reve

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Reinhold Kainhofer writes: > Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 12:45:17 schrieb David Kastrup: >> 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

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Am Wednesday, 21. September 2011, 12:45:17 schrieb David Kastrup: > 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. To submit a rev

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

On Sep 21, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Peekay Ex wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Peekay Ex writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, m...@apollinemike.com >>> wrote: For what it's worth, I run into the same problem from time

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Hello, On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Peekay Ex writes: > >> Hello, >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, m...@apollinemike.com >> 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-l

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Peekay Ex writes: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, m...@apollinemike.com > 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. > >

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

Hello, On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 9:35 AM, m...@apollinemike.com 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 quest

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

"m...@apollinemike.com" writes: > On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:27 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Just wanted to throw this observation out: the current work on optional >> arguments is one area where working with Rietveld is getting really >> strained. The reason is that Rietveld just supports discussi

Re: Rietveld workflow problems

On Sep 21, 2011, at 10:27 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > > Just wanted to throw this observation out: the current work on optional > arguments is one area where working with Rietveld is getting really > strained. The reason is that Rietveld just supports discussing and > improving a single patch/com

Rietveld workflow problems

Just wanted to throw this observation out: the current work on optional arguments is one area where working with Rietveld is getting really strained. The reason is that Rietveld just supports discussing and improving a single patch/commit. The current patch series consists of one infrastructure