>
> Namely, Philippe felt it important to
> have one patch that completely backed out two or more of my previous
> patches,
> *followed by a patch that incorporated a useful part of one of**those
> patches*.


Did I do that? My original big/unique patch did indeed remove your fix to
one of the tests in C03traps.ztst and at the same time added an equivalent
but different fix. I realized this only after sending my original patch. My
split patches no longer do that;
patch-01-revert-mistaken-errexit-patches.txt no longer reverts your fix.
I'm not aware of another of your changes that I revert in
patch-01-revert-mistaken-errexit-patches.txt and add back in one of the
later patches. Did I overlook something?

Philippe


On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:54 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 1:11 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > The ONLY issue with Philippe's message, if there is any
> > problem with it at all, is that two of the patches overlapped on one
> > of the files, such that one backed out a change and then another put
> > that same change back again.
>
> This also seems to reflect a philosophical point that it might be
> worth mentioning in the development guide (which is probably overdue
> for an overhaul in general).  Namely, Philippe felt it important to
> have one patch that completely backed out two or more of my previous
> patches, followed by a patch that incorporated a useful part of one of
> those patches.
>
> This isn't generally how we've approached things -- we just move
> forward incrementally from the tip of the branch.
>