On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:26:03 -0500, Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu> wrote:
> unlocked.  Here's the fix.  cworth, what's the most convenient way for
> me to slip this in to the patch series?

I'd most prefer a rebased branch including the fix, along with an email
sent to me, (giving either the branch-name to pull or else the actual
patches via email).

[I think I answered this in IRC a while ago, but I don't see a later
email from you on this topic. Do you have a branch that's ready for me?
Perhaps that's qparser-3 (which looks more likely than qparser or
qparser-hack)]

Maybe we could use a naming convention for branches that people feel are
ready for me to pull. For example, if I look at Austin's current
git branches I see:

  amdragon/0.3.x
  amdragon/atomic-new-hack
  amdragon/atomic-new-v1
  amdragon/eager-metadata
  amdragon/eager-metadata-2
  amdragon/eager-metadata-v3
  amdragon/folder-hack
  amdragon/getdate
  amdragon/inheritable-tags-hack
  amdragon/master
  amdragon/qparser
  amdragon/qparser-3
  amdragon/qparser-hack
  amdragon/search-perf
  amdragon/search-perf-2
  amdragon/search-perf-3
  amdragon/search-perf-hack

Some of those are obviously old (search-perf and search-perf-2 obviously
superceded by search-perf-3). And some are obviously just experiements
(qparser-hack, search-perf-hack, folder-hack, and qparser-hack).

But the others are less clear. One option is for me to not go looking
for any branches except in response to specific pull requests. Another
option would be for people to name branches something like
for-cworth/qparser-3 once things are ready to go.

That way, I could do something like:

	git remote update
	git branch -r | grep for-cworth

and see what people are proposing.

What do you think?

Of course, I still want to have email so that everyone can follow along
at home, and it's easy to reply for patch review, etc.

-Carl

-- 
carl.d.worth@intel.com