[erlang-patches] What is the preferred method of submitting patches to the list? [was Re: [PATCH] ei: integer overflow in string/atom encoding]
Tue Jun 7 19:05:10 CEST 2011
On 2011-06-07 18:41, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:11:01PM -0400, Tom Moertel wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Mikael Pettersson<> wrote:
>>> p.s. Thank you for inlining the patch and providing a rationale, most git
>>> users on this list don't do that which makes peer review difficult.
>> If inline patches are preferred, perhaps the following recommendations
>> should be revised to say so more clearly:
> That Mikael likes inline patches is not our official policy.
> He is in this context a peer himself, although a dear one.
> We find patches in the form of Git branch references less error prone.
> Also, one can rather easily navigate to the contributor's github repository
> and view the commits, not as easy as having the patch in the mail, though.
> Maybe we should wish for contributors to besides the git fetch command
> supply a http link to the branch for easier online viewing...
+1, I would like that.
> Those who do inline patches correct are welcome to do so, but
> recommending that as the preferred method would render us lots
> of corrupt patches due to malicious mail clients and whatnot.
I think Mikaels point is well taken. For small patches it is much easier
to review a patch via mail then on github and discussions on various
issues could easily be done in the mail.
Patch notifications should always carry a 'git fetch' entry at the top
of the mail.
More information about the erlang-patches