On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 13:45 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Well, the git-send-email patchbomb workflow is pretty ugly too in many > respects. I can see why some people don't much like it. [1] I began with git send-email, but the email client of the person in question did not allow getting emails out in a form suitable for git am so then I sent one mail with git format-patch output attached, that was rejected in favour of github pull requests. > Did you offer those Debian folks a git url they could fetch from ? I hadn't yet, that is what I was going to try next. Based on comments from the last discussion, I expect anything other than a github pull request will be rejected. > If a Debian team insisted that the only way they would consider my > contribution is if I provided it via github, I would probably ask the > DPL or someone to help mediate. I don't think that would be appropriate and I don't want to antagonise anyone more than I already did. It might be useful if there were Debian folks who are github users who were willing to forward branches, attached patches or patchbombs to github pull requests though. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part