Re: [Tails-project] back-and-forth amendments on a single is…
|This message is part of the following thread:|
|the complete thread tree sorted by date|
> That sounds pretty convoluted to me already. Is this the proper way?
- What Cody did with (2) could be OK'ish for obvious improvements, but indeed there's a risk that the discussion gets split between 2 MRs.
- Cody could have suggested changes on syster's MR (!8), and then syster could have accepted those suggestions into !8: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/discussions/index.html#suggest-changes
- Cody and syster could share a fork on which they both have write access. So they could have collaborated on the original MR: Cody could have pushed his changes directly on top of the initially proposed ones.
- Fork shared by Cody and syster (see above)
- Cody creates his own MR (!32) that supersedes !8, and !8 must be closed (i.e. rejected as obsolete), either by syster or by someone allowed to close arbitrary MRs.
It could be OK as long as the original MR (!8) did not have much discussion, that would be lost by migrating future discussion to !32.
> 4. When reviewing Cody's MR I added some commits to the branch: > 3d8f1a284f..f8a5cd8289.
> I pushed these to doc/17227-letterboxing-tor-browser. They get > automatically referenced on #17227 because I mention the issue in the > commit message but they are not referenced on !32.
|This message was posted to the following mailing lists:|
Mailing List Info | Nearby Messages
|[Tails-project] Proposal: make "stable" our default GitLab branch [Was: GitLab is now in production]||Re: [Tails-project] Proposal: make "stable" our default GitLab branch [Was: GitLab is now in production]|
|lists.autistici.org administrated by postmaster||Lurker (version 2.3)|