[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: makelsr

From: Malte Meyn
Subject: Re: makelsr
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:29:16 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0

Am 28.12.18 um 21:33 schrieb Phil Holmes:
A little late to the party, but I am almost certain that running makelsr to create an LSR patch and then (after testing with at least make, make doc) and pushing that patch, and then putting up the doc patch for review is a perfectly accestable way to go.  I've rather got out of the habit, but I regularly used to run makelsr, eyeball it carefully (as in the CG) then push it without review.  Extra files in the patch won't break the build, only missing ones.

I think that this sounds like the easiest way. That way every single commit ‘make’s without problems, there is no makelsr output in the review of the then following doc patch and one doesn’t have to mess with different branches. (Ok, I have to admit that I simply didn’t understand exactly how the solution with separate commits and a merge should look like. But it seems as if I’m not the only one.)

Could you, Phil, please push such a makelsr run as you described? As long as I don’t have permission/trust from some of you to do this without review, I’d have to go the ‘long’ Rietveld way.

Of course, if there are objections against this way, I’ll try to figure out how exactly the ‘separate-branches-and-merge-commit’ thing works.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]