Yup. Creature of habit and back in the day Tomaz preferred single commits.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, anthony shaw
wrote:
> My question was more why do you need to rebase at all? Just to squash
> the commits for the PR?
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Eric Johnson
> wrote:
> > Just a
My question was more why do you need to rebase at all? Just to squash
the commits for the PR?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Eric Johnson
wrote:
> Just a creature of habit and that was how I learned to squash.
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, anthony shaw
> wrote:
>
>> ok. Now I'm curious
Just a creature of habit and that was how I learned to squash.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, anthony shaw
wrote:
> ok. Now I'm curious why you have to do an interactive rebase in the
> first place? That tool is kinda playing with fire unless you're
> working off a feature branch
>
> On Fri, O
I always interactively rebase. Gives me more control, never fails me.
Empty rebase mostly means the changes are already applied through some
other means.
Best,
Allard
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 23:46 anthony shaw wrote:
> ok. Now I'm curious why you have to do an interactive rebase in the
> first
ok. Now I'm curious why you have to do an interactive rebase in the
first place? That tool is kinda playing with fire unless you're
working off a feature branch
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Eric Johnson
wrote:
> No, on rebase, your commit just disappeared!
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:41 PM,
No, on rebase, your commit just disappeared!
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:41 PM, anthony shaw
wrote:
> "hard time merging"? let me guess, "patch does not apply"? This is my
> favourite error, so much so it's like a close family member.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> >
"hard time merging"? let me guess, "patch does not apply"? This is my
favourite error, so much so it's like a close family member.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Yup, I kicked the can down the road. My next merge for #901 had the same
> issue.
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at
It's vote day, I'd like Tomaz's vote to round this off as our PMC
chair. Think he might be on a plane so I'll wait until later in the
day.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> [+1] Release Apache Libcloud 1.3.0
>
> Thanks for this Anthony! Looks like Hacktoberfest as a huge suc
Yup, I kicked the can down the road. My next merge for #901 had the same
issue.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
> Not sure if this related, but I had a hard time merging #856 in this
> morning. I was following my normal procedure using git-am, updating
> CHANGES.rst, then r
Not sure if this related, but I had a hard time merging #856 in this
morning. I was following my normal procedure using git-am, updating
CHANGES.rst, then rebasing to squash into a single commit. Prior to rebase,
I'd see 065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563 in my git-log. During
rebase -i, I w
[+1] Release Apache Libcloud 1.3.0
Thanks for this Anthony! Looks like Hacktoberfest as a huge success.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Jerry Chen wrote:
> [+1] Release Apache Libcloud 1.3.0
>
> > On Oct 10, 2016, at 4:59 AM, anthony shaw
> wrote:
> >
> > This is a voting thread for Libcloud
11 matches
Mail list logo
