> "Always been the case" = I remember back in 2015 that reviewers often
asked me whether intermediate commits were building properly. Maybe that
was just out of curiosity, but to me it sounded like something we should
strive for.
To be clear; I'm talking about *passing all tests*, not building.
Let me add some necessary additions to this quite rude email...
I am sorry, Manish.
> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 10:33, Anthony Ramine a écrit :
>
>
>> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 01:00, Manish Goregaokar a écrit :
>>
>> So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to
> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 02:10, Gregory Szorc a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Manish Goregaokar
> wrote:
>
>>
>
> The Firefox repo has the same dilemma. Ideally history is good down to the
> commit level. In reality, we only test on "push
> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 01:00, Manish Goregaokar a écrit :
>
> So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to squash
> https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/18750 and it seemed like we have
> different ideas of how "atomic" commits should be before landing.
It should
Hi Manish,
On 11/03/2017 01:00 AM, Manish Goregaokar wrote:
> So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to squash
> https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/18750 and it seemed like we have
> different ideas of how "atomic" commits should be before landing.
First of all thanks for landing that
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Manish Goregaokar
wrote:
> So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to squash
> https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/18750 and it seemed like we have
> different ideas of how "atomic" commits should be before landing.
>
> When we land
So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to squash
https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/18750 and it seemed like we have
different ideas of how "atomic" commits should be before landing.
When we land pull requests in servo/servo we like individual commits to
build so that git bisect works.
7 matches
Mail list logo