From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=96.73.9.1; helo=muon.bluestop.org; envelope-from=rebecca@bluestop.org; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from muon.bluestop.org (muon.bluestop.org [96.73.9.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65030201B0432 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:52:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from muon.bluestop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by muon.bluestop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1105A826A4; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:52:56 -0700 (MST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluestop.org; s=mail; t=1550836376; bh=KC8WnAKIaQCbwCNv9S7YPOD3PREerlky3zvvUcMIJgA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Mtz9LgC428lAsYL7OnkM1Zcy4FFhz2eeSt1N+GVcy7OMljH5B4dKPfpDSQfRC+7vk TKGZEwxZPP3i1SvKY6O6D7XnLkyQzVSsDK0vsF/uBb4+QL8e8JSTujCYwjWPOnGimK 90ecPIX2vonE8IdL8v/Knwzj2kYVYTcoTokD+zzU= Received: from muon.bluestop.org ([127.0.0.1]) by muon.bluestop.org (muon.bluestop.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id S50QWCol11fP; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:52:55 -0700 (MST) Received: from photon.int.bluestop.org (gw.bluestop.org [96.73.9.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by muon.bluestop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:52:55 -0700 (MST) To: Andrew Fish Cc: Laszlo Ersek , edk2-devel@lists.01.org References: <9313a877-0c8b-2f23-1800-f6f8e8a1d6ee@redhat.com> <8211BE0B-3108-47CC-AFF3-861732168F96@apple.com> From: Rebecca Cran Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 04:52:00 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8211BE0B-3108-47CC-AFF3-861732168F96@apple.com> Subject: Re: [edk2-announce] Community Meeting Minutes X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:52:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US On 2/8/19 10:52 AM, Andrew Fish wrote: > I think the patch workflow is kind of like a coding standards. Some folks advocate for lots of small patches (common in open source projects), and some folks advocate for a patch per bug. I think the biggest upside to the patch granularity is it is much easier to bisect a failure. > > So I've used Bitbucket with a branch per commit (you name your branch with a standard pattern and the bugzilla ) model and if your branch has a patch series (set of commits) you can view each commit independently from the UI and the default view is the entire patch series. So you can see both. I think I see the difference now: I've used several review systems, most recently including Bitbucket, and with Review Board, Phabricator, and I think Gerrit people tend to post several patches against the same bug, often not labeling them as patch 1/3, 2/3 etc. but just using the same bug number. Seeing the entire series clearly as an email thread on here is rather nice. -- Rebecca Cran