[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#41882] [PATCH] channels: Allow specifying per-channel --allow-downg
[bug#41882] [PATCH] channels: Allow specifying per-channel --allow-downgrades in the channel file
Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:26:22 +0200
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Jakub Kądziołka <firstname.lastname@example.org> skribis:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:52:38AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> How would it affect your workflow if you used merges instead of
> The fundamental difference would be that each merge increases the
> complexity of the branch, and as such, has a cost. Sometimes, I get
> some merge conflicts; in such a case I want to prepare a new patch that
> applies cleanly onto master, such that I can push it easily when the
> time is right.
> Also, the workflow of rebasing a patchstack allows me to clearly see
> which patches are yet to be upstreamed. A history with merges - not so
I do ./pre-inst-env for my local branches but I understand one might
prefer to use ‘guix pull’.
Hmm dunno, I think this needs more thought.
>> With authentication now in place, you probably have to do
>> this anyway, or to also disable it.
> I have configured git to sign all my commits, so it re-signs all the
> patches I apply each time I rebase. I admit, this only works because I
> have access to the repository itself, and as such, my key is authorized.