continuing anothers work - launchpad merge proposals, mail spam

[Martin Pool]

On 22 June 2010 15:09, Andrew Bennetts <andrew.bennetts at canonical.com> wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't want to stress or annoy folk though, and I think it might at
>> the moment. We can address part of it, I think, by using a
>> prerequisite branch of the existing MP; this is a bit of a hack, when

I do think that if the new branch includes only small additional
changes doing this generates a lot of noise.

It is a bit weird to be asked to review something that looks 95% the
same as my own patch from last week, and to not be sure if I'm
supposed to actually review it, or whether the mp is just a formality
as it's queued for pqm.

> I think this is a decent workaround until LP has better support for this
> situation.
>
> We should be explicit about what to do with the prerequisite branch (the
> pseudo-superseded one) at the same time.  I suggest marking it Work In
> Progress while leaving a comment saying it's actually been superseded by
> the MP at $URL.  That way the review queue is not cluttered by it, and
> any humans looking at it will be able to figure out what's really going
> on.

I guess it's not yet possible to mark the earlier branch superseded by
the later one?  If not, this is ok.

If you're effectively superseding someone else's patch it will avoid
confusion to make a comment as spiv says and also to say in the new
one whether you're planning to feed it in right away, or to ask for
additional review, or something else.  Another option is to manually
attach an incremental diff to the later mp.

-- 
Martin