Makes sense, earlier Jake was talking about how 'trunk' is a "protected branch".
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > I think INFRA only disables force-pushes to the master: the rest of the > branches is a fair game ;) > > Cos > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:12PM, lars hofhansl wrote: > > I just had to fix up the history on the 0.94 branch, because I forgot to > > rebase after a pull (and I had some committed changes already). > > > > git will happily let you push stuff, even if that messes up the history > (and > > reorder commits, in my case my local change was ordered before the pulled > > changes). > > It's not wrong, since I should have rebased my changes. Just... uhm... > surprising :) > > > > > > Scary, but it worked and at least git gives me enough tools to fix > things. > > > > -- Lars > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 10:22 AM > > Subject: We have our first victim > > > > > > Ram pushed up a commit as a new branch 'trunk' instead of to 'master'. I > > will file an infra ticket to nuke the new branch 'trunk' as this is going > > to confuse people. Objections? > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > ═ - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
