On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:03:21AM -0500, Kohei Yoshida
wrote:
> So, part of the problem was that I was always using git pull, even where
> git merge would've been appropriate.
>
> To be honest, I didn't even know of 'git merge' until now. I always
> thought pull was merge in git universe... :-
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 12:31 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> We should be using 'git merge'
So, part of the problem was that I was always using git pull, even where
git merge would've been appropriate.
To be honest, I didn't even know of 'git merge' until now. I always
thought pull was merg
On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 12:31 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 08:28 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> > Now that we promote the concept of feature branches, I hope we can
> > revert this.
>
> We should be using 'git merge' unless it is for a purely local branch
> that we are re
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:31:14PM +, Michael Meeks
wrote:
> We should be using 'git merge' unless it is for a purely local branch
> that we are rebasing - surely ? at least - encouraging wider use of
> re-base is likely to burn time and motivation - that thing simply
> doesn't work for
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 08:28 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> Now that we promote the concept of feature branches, I hope we can
> revert this.
We should be using 'git merge' unless it is for a purely local branch
that we are rebasing - surely ? at least - encouraging wider use of
re-base is
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:52:56PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> Sorry for that, I did not see all the consequences :-(
>
> It really sounds as reverting is the safer choice - Miklos, can you
> please do that?
I just did so in the libreoffice-3-3 branch. If it's urgent, I can
cherry-pick it man
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 08:28:36AM -0500, Kohei Yoshida
wrote:
> Also, I have no doubt that some of us will start using feature branches
> to share development with others, and if my understanding is correct
> (which it may not be) rebasing locally and pushing to the remote feature
> branch when
Hi Kohei, Miklos,
On 2010-11-18 at 08:28 -0500, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> > > And continuously pulling from the master branch is very common when you
> > > are in a long-term feature branch, and messing up the branch history is
> > > the last thing you want to see happen while the branch is still be
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 10:30 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:28:36PM -0500, Kohei Yoshida
> wrote:
> > 3) When creating a feature branch, by default, the autosetuprebase
> > option is set to true, which forces rebase when pulling from the master
> > branch even without the
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:28:36PM -0500, Kohei Yoshida
wrote:
> 3) When creating a feature branch, by default, the autosetuprebase
> option is set to true, which forces rebase when pulling from the master
> branch even without the -r switch. You need to manually specify
> --no-rebase to disable
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 00:57 +0100, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> 1) Non-fastforwards (ie. pushing a rebase) are not allowed in repos at
> all.
>
> 2) In case non-fastforwards are worked around by deleting the branch +
> creating it again, the CIA bot spams the #libreoffice channel. (That
> happened tonigh
Hi Kendy,
Tonight on IRC we had a discussion about two issues related to git
hooks:
1) Non-fastforwards (ie. pushing a rebase) are not allowed in repos at
all.
2) In case non-fastforwards are worked around by deleting the branch +
creating it again, the CIA bot spams the #libreoffice channel. (T
12 matches
Mail list logo
