-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Finding a way to upstream a stream of changes from my fork #54
Comments
What I've been doing is upstreaming individually, and then waiting until they're all in toe switch over. Another option would be rebasing the fork as they get merged. Would this work for you? onCheck, role, boolean attrs, and new attrs seem great. I'm not sure what onLinkCheck does so I'm not sure yet. |
Creating a PR per change won't work at the moment. I need to progress in my work at a prolific pace. Hence I need to keep an up-to-date repo with all the fixes for the bugs I encounter in rescript-tea. But I cannot expect you to accept every PR I make, and that too immediately. So rebasing the fork, or may be cherry-picking commits, should work. |
On the other hand, feel free to pick anything from my fork without waiting for me to create PRs. |
Would
trigger e.preventDefault() automatically? As far as I can recall, it doesn't, causing the page to reload to the href.
would trigger So it essentially a utility function. |
I see, that makes sense. Maybe it would be a good idea to include an |
Great yeah. If you make PRs for anything that's ready and rebase off them, we should be able to get these done quickly! Thanks again! |
I have made several modifications to this repo in my (new) fork, like
onCheck
event handler (jbhoot@1c5beaf)role
attribute is created: as an attribute instead of as a property (jbhoot@c8c238c)onLinkClick
handler (which also handlepreventDefault()
) (jbhoot@79c1c4f)Initially I thought of creating a branch and an associated pull request for each change. However, I need to use these changes immediately in my code. So I need all of those changes within a single branch.
Now I am committing everything to the
main
branch of my fork. Each commit still deals with only one thing. Each commit message also describes the why, if needed.This way, we can merge these changes in this repo at leisure.
Let me know if and how you would like to handle this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: