[PATCH] Tests for KnitContent class (Revisited)

[John Arbash Meinel]

Dmitry Vasiliev wrote:
...

> I fully agree with the comments and in the new (attached) version of the
> patch I've decided to not change the signatures for now since
> KnitContent.line_delta(_iter) methods should be reviewed anyway (see my
> comments above).
> 
> 

Thanks for this. +1 from me, so I'm submitting it now.

Is there a reason you are submitting patches rather than bundles?

In general, we prefer bundles because:

1) Bundle Buggy can automatically track them. Including when they are
merged into bzr.dev, and when they are superseded by a follow up patch.

2) They allow us to give proper annotation to you for doing the changes.

3) It allows us to do 'bzr merge ../foo.patch' rather than 'patch -p0 <
../foo.patch'

This is a minor thing, but it does mean we can merge valid patches even
if the source has moved around a bit. (1) is probably the biggest
advantage at the moment. :)

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20061128/f61fd181/attachment.pgp