On Monday 12 May 2014 14:47:13 John Ralls wrote:
On May 8, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be
wrote:
You're welcome. I was too curious to let it pass and it was a good
opportunity to learn something about git merge in the process.
The only actual damage seems to
On Friday 09 May 2014 18:18:57 Wm Tarr wrote:
On 07/05/2014 22:56, John Ralls wrote:
On May 7, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Ekaterina Gerasimova
kittykat3...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if you're the right person to talk to about user help
in
GnuCash (documentation, mailing lists and
On 7 May 2014 22:56, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
On May 7, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Ekaterina Gerasimova kittykat3...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if you're the right person to talk to about user help in
GnuCash (documentation, mailing lists and other forms), so I would
appreciate
On May 13, 2014, at 3:53 AM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be wrote:
On Monday 12 May 2014 14:47:13 John Ralls wrote:
On May 8, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Geert Janssens janssens-ge...@telenet.be
wrote:
You're welcome. I was too curious to let it pass and it was a good
opportunity to learn
On May 13, 2014, at 11:47 AM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
Yeah, it would be silly to merge after every commit. One strategy might be to
frequently merge from master and then revert the merge if there are no
conflicts. ISTM that relying on rerere in the face of ongoing development
On May 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On May 13, 2014, at 11:47 AM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
Yeah, it would be silly to merge after every commit. One strategy might be
to frequently merge from master and then revert the merge if there are no
On 13 May 2014 18:39, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
...
In the other direction, I think that once a topic branch is merged to master
it should be abandoned (unless it is used to fix bugs in the stuff that was
just merged). A new topic branch should be created for subsequent changes,
On 13 May 2014 21:09, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
On May 13, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
On May 13, 2014, at 11:47 AM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote:
Yeah, it would be silly to merge after every commit. One strategy might be
to frequently merge
On 10/05/2014 10:36, Geert Janssens wrote:
On Friday 09 May 2014 16:51:06 Wm Tarr wrote:
I'm working my way through getting python enabled with Windows from
scratch.
Great ! Will you document your success ?
When it happens, definitely. Made a lot of progress today, I can do an
error free
--On May 13, 2014 9:17:58 PM +0100 Colin Law clan...@gmail.com wrote:
It’s not. I see no reason to abandon a branch just because it’s
merged into master, and if you really have a long-running branch
where you do all of your work, neither do you. It won’t avoid the
ladder look, either. There
On May 13, 2014, at 9:01 PM, Mike Alexander m...@umich.edu wrote:
--On May 13, 2014 9:17:58 PM +0100 Colin Law clan...@gmail.com wrote:
It’s not. I see no reason to abandon a branch just because it’s
merged into master, and if you really have a long-running branch
where you do all of your
--On May 13, 2014 9:35:58 PM -0700 John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us
wrote:
That's the SVN way. We discussed this back in March [1] and decided
that we're not going to do that anymore. If you want to revisit that
you need a better argument than that's the way I've always done it,
considering that
12 matches
Mail list logo
