X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=HBVyN8AYzqHU3/niXKTVGPB/vF1JTiimUy8Z9rJUq4Y=;
	b=DDf2gACmKt2nOs41FTrFribGGqqTUaTdK4uCxRbYzWReuwOjHtJILnCHmYMTfmiaHO
	nbtXLA8y86C/L/EvqcHeMpph5A/iVCQMl3zfWl7ORkFroHuNpxRapsA42PUUdmnMNcuQ
	1ne9zU0Wont3J2RUvyyJkF6Ufns+lw2k4CJCTeFYgqIW4vgmKjfZmQqIu4MtBs4SWXd5
	k1T8DQ+JkARPMcH+R7CFgFKbqnlP8hq+VNWUePBE4MOFR9rW880KYFuPO7943ppy2YMP
	ejWZZWg1E2cdAevHbuXzlv0CUe2vR3c6jfwhwqQ2ree7Tcy/XGHLuzcWPdzQY/jy+Xmr
	fP4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=HBVyN8AYzqHU3/niXKTVGPB/vF1JTiimUy8Z9rJUq4Y=;
	b=X9duRPvE1pzCWv/xLM0PHKiUf8Wk38+FBNCF8l0fFoFiZHAIOVwPbCRV7aDAmRF6GH
	rrTeTctNTP4ms97hIiMMM8PCXKAeVGVUDrZWuD8J/sSO8df8448n/y0bnCLeqALDSGzO
	uuColgz4YNxJEhU/lcwwrcCjyXLsgXnKr4aauY/zIzxaK8NXxG12ar1nzEGl/tcGzxZ5
	ZByjZDn3YdkRh/dHTHsVV3CY2hzJ/Z5Mot4XpkGd/SUUh4/uADU55cgTGYQN77EDrMiF
	4AqIRKRZIGWuv6ysV2QhWrmgLS8IWwk5YSj+E8MGMf5wXMDnxyRUcUzeGpVDzEYIusYD
	11og==
X-Gm-Message-State:	ALoCoQlgCmhE5Y0C8/j9CjelvB9pLXSLzjKIzaQodcqgXCgvOz8Qs7LcctLsd/MmNfYTsBsYMQyB83cB2DdZs9HzSkPp69VpXw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.60.232.231 with SMTP id tr7mr25503155oec.27.1453249192393;
	Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:19:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<569E9B40.8010804@iee.org>
References:	<201601182153 DOT 15624 DOT gheskett AT shentel DOT net>
	<CAC4O8c_fDrxeAKezz7VT8cO6bYNfHME8OadYTY3Ge4cajLRwDQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAJXU7q_rXOsD7odbHjP+GFJ8gUAp81_XoBh_RmJsak0Y-BOh=w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<569E9B40 DOT 8010804 AT iee DOT org>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:19:52 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAJXU7q-dVtxcuJ_c7-vS1z4+nD+EbHFyG3L+hnSe0jejVgCtbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] pcb vs gcode export
From:	"Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

--001a11369ad6e202dc0529b8f114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 19 Jan 2016 20:26, "M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>
> On 19/01/16 19:55, Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >
> > Or to be quicker, just emailing a diff here can work for initial
comments.

> >
> No .. a link to the git commits is a much better way, and then should
> facilitate easy merging into another's code/repo.

I would say that it is rare to encounter patches that are clean to merge
without editing, so that argument may be limited.

Reviewing diffs really is the way to go (whether sent to mailing list or
linked to a git repository). If there are edits required, merging is a non
starter, the original author needs to fix the patch (series), and resubmit
for review.

For me, it is FAR easier to review code submitted as an attached,
uncompressed diff, or a link to a cgit / gitweb commit, than being forced
to find the laptop, grab the right git repository etc..

Attaching the patch makes the review process easier and quicker. (If it is
attached to email, it can be done from any platform or computer, not just
my development one). Having the git repo to grab from does of course speed
up the "reviewer testing" aspect. I'd usually consider this a second step
in the review process, depending on the change.

Peter

--001a11369ad6e202dc0529b8f114
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 19 Jan 2016 20:26, &quot;M. J. Everitt (<a href=3D"mailto:m DOT j DOT everitt AT ie=
e.org">m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT co=
m">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>]&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie=
.com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On 19/01/16 19:55, Peter Clifton (<a href=3D"mailto:petercjclifton AT goo=
glemail.com">petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com</a>) [via<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] wr=
ote:<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Or to be quicker, just emailing a diff here can work for initial =
comments.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; No .. a link to the git commits is a much better way, and then should<=
br>
&gt; facilitate easy merging into another&#39;s code/repo.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I would say that it is rare to encounter patches that are cl=
ean to merge without editing, so that argument may be limited.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Reviewing diffs really is the way to go (whether sent to mai=
ling list or linked to a git repository). If there are edits required, merg=
ing is a non starter, the original author needs to fix the patch (series), =
and resubmit for review.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">For me, it is FAR easier to review code submitted as an atta=
ched, uncompressed diff, or a link to a cgit / gitweb commit, than being fo=
rced to find the laptop, grab the right git repository etc..</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Attaching the patch makes the review process easier and quic=
ker. (If it is attached to email, it can be done from any platform or compu=
ter, not just my development one). Having the git repo to grab from does of=
 course speed up the &quot;reviewer testing&quot; aspect. I&#39;d usually c=
onsider this a second step in the review process, depending on the change.<=
/p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Peter<br>
</p>

--001a11369ad6e202dc0529b8f114--

- Raw text -