Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:22:45AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > But otherwise it is great news to me. Actually, in that case, is it
> > worth renaming it to Cogito and using cg to i
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> > So you want to merge someone else's tree into your committed state, and
> > then merge the result with your working directory to get the working
> > directory you continue with, provided that the seco
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> So you want to merge someone else's tree into your committed state, and
> then merge the result with your working directory to get the working
> directory you continue with, provided that the second merge is trivial?
No, you don't even "merge" the
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> > Is there some reason you don't commit before merging? All of the current
> > merge theory seems to want to merge two commits, using the information git
> > keeps about them.
>
> Note that the 3-way m
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> Is there some reason you don't commit before merging? All of the current
> merge theory seems to want to merge two commits, using the information git
> keeps about them.
Note that the 3-way merge would _only_ merge the committed state. The
thing
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I think I've explained my name tracking worries. When it comes to "how to
> merge", there's three issues:
>
> - we do commonly have merge clashes where both trees have applied the
>exact same patch. That should merge perfectly well using the 3-
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> But otherwise it is great news to me. Actually, in that case, is it
> worth renaming it to Cogito and using cg to invoke it? Wouldn't be that
> actually more confusing after it gets merged? IOW, should I stick to
> "git" or feel free to rename it to "c
Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:13:21PM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > So, I assume that you don't want to merge my "SCM layer" (which is
> > perfectly fine by me). However, I also apply p
Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:58:10PM CEST, I got a letter
where "C. Scott Ananian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> >to yours is no problem for me. Currently I see your HEAD is at
> >461aef08823a18a6c69d472499ef5257f8c7f6c8, so I will
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> So, I assume that you don't want to merge my "SCM layer" (which is
> perfectly fine by me). However, I also apply plenty of patches
> concerning the "core git" - be it portability, leak fixes, argument
> parsing fixes and so on.
I'm actually perfectly
Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:44:02PM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> And I merged your "Add -z option to show-files", but you had based your
> other patches on Petr's tree which due to my other changes is not going to
> merge totally clean
11 matches
Mail list logo