On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:18:52AM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Christian, > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 08:16:43PM +0100, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Christian Seiler <email@example.com> writes: > > > > > Your goal in wanting to stop people from having to deal with > > > patch files manually is laudable, but I see the following way > > > forward to achieve that goal: > > > > > > - Pull requests. > > > > > > - Make it easier to create personal copies of remote (!) > > > repositories in one's own space. (Currently it's still a bit > > > cumbersome.) > > > > This would cover most of the use cases I had in mind. Thanks for > > bringing it up. > > Since writing this I've thought of another usecase, where next/foo > branches complement pull requests. > > Someone might contribute a fix in the form of a PR, and an uploader of > the package might review that fix and determine that it should be > merged. They then look at the master branch and decide that it should > not go into the next upload, for whatever reason. So they can merge the > PR to next/sid. > > This is useful because it avoids accidentally reviewing the patch twice. I would imagine that any PR workflow would allow anyone to add a comment saying they have reviewed the changes and they look good, withing the same "place" where the maintainer is already looking at.
Description: PGP signature