----- Original Message ----- From: "Malte Meyn" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: makelsr
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.
Pushed to staging and then patchy-ed to master.