From: richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com 
  
 "Theodore Ts'o"  writes: 
  
 > In some cases, if it's a patch sent via e-mail, I'll just fix up the 
 > patch and then let the contributor know that they failed to do error 
 > checking, or their patch had a buffer overrun and result in a security 
 > vulnerability etc.  But with a merge request, all I can do is explain 
 > what they did wrong, and ask them to resubmit the merge request. 
  
 Not looking to argue the main point (90% of everything is crud, and i 
 dont think anyone things every contribution must be accepted), but this 
 statement confused me: the merge request is already in git, so i dont 
 understand why people think it is harder to use than a patch attached to 
 an email? you can check out a merge request and amend or cherry pick 
 commits. you could even run git diff and pipe the result into a patch 
 and use whatever existing workflow works for the bts? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)