[PATCH 4 of 4] transplant: add --merge-all and --merge-last

[timeless]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:
> Problem is, it is already difficult enough to get a patch in.

hrm, I've actually found Mercurial's patch process to be easier than
many other places i work with.

> Believe me, I have often chosen not to send a patch
> due to the painful process that this involves.

I'm sorry to hear that.

> Sometimes though, it would be worthwhile to accept a patch,
> even if it might contain some minor grammar errors.
> Just to make *any* progress on an issue at last.

I think we've hoped that this would happen. The general conclusion was
that mg or someone would deal with my comments later. Perhaps i need
to include a signature:

| --
| These are editorial comments and do not mean that your patch is not
acceptable.
| If you don't want to address them, don't worry, this email is a note
for the future for
| someone else to improve the English.

> Commenting on a patch has the problem that people then
> see it as "there are issues" with the patch, so it won't be
> included.

:(, is there some other way to do it? I'm reactionary, there were ~60
hg messages for me to read when i got back from my vacation, and i was
trying to read and comment on hg messages during those three weeks.

Often the best people to ask are the people patching since they
understand the code in question. If I ask too many weeks late, they
might not remember.

> Also, commenting on grammar errors or typos that happen to
> be in a patch, but originate from preexisting code isn't
> exactly helpful (I'm not talking about this patch here).

I should probably try to fork those into new subjects w/o the patcher
in the to: field, would that help?

> Not every grammar error is from the person sending
> a patch.

I'm aware of that, and i think i generally try to note that when I
reply in those cases.