On 2 December 2015 at 09:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It's Dec 1, which means it's time for any questions people have about the
> proposed workflows so we can get answers by Dec 15.
>
> I have one question that applies to both proposals and one specific to
> GitLab. The general one is whether both Gu
On Dec 01, 2015, at 06:58 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>If the original PR was to the 3.4 branch, once you merge it you can, in the
>web ui, create a new PR that merges 3.4 into 3.5, then 3.5 into 3.6. That’s
>about the best that’s available right now.
I haven't had much luck with this, but it might
On Dec 01, 2015, at 03:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>(A bigger question might be if merging a patch across three branches will
>become any easier. At this point I'm reluctant to accept small asyncio PRs
>because I have to merge then into 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. But I expect that this
>would be a matte
On Dec 01, 2015, at 08:47 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>However I think removing the intermediate commits require an interactive
>rebase to squash commits on the source branch. GitLab doesn't provide a
>through-the-web interface to interactive rebases. You'd have to use the
>command line for this, an
On Dec 01, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>Guido doesn't want intermediate commits nor what he calls "merge turds" to
>show up in the history. I want to be able to do merges from the browser. Do
>either GitHub or GitLab provide a way through the web UI to give Guido what
>he wants, or will
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> (A bigger question might be if merging a patch across three branches will
> become any easier. At this point I'm reluctant to accept small asyncio PRs
> because I have to merge then into 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. But I expect that this
> would
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It's Dec 1, which means it's time for any questions people have about the
> proposed workflows so we can get answers by Dec 15.
>
> I have one question that applies to both proposals and one specific to
> GitLab. The general one is whether bot
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> It's Dec 1, which means it's time for any questions people have about the
> proposed workflows so we can get answers by Dec 15.
>
> I have one question that applies to both proposals and one specific to
> GitLab. The general one is whether
It's Dec 1, which means it's time for any questions people have about the
proposed workflows so we can get answers by Dec 15.
I have one question that applies to both proposals and one specific to
GitLab. The general one is whether both Guido and me can both be happy. :)
Guido doesn't want interme
