On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 April 2009 15:33:04 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> >
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 15:33:04 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
> >> > wr
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 April 2009 15:33:04 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> >
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Tuesday 14 April 2009 15:33:04 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
> >> > wr
On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
> > wrote:
> >> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-
On Saturday 11 April 2009 22:47:45 David ?Bombe? Roden wrote:
> On Saturday 11 April 2009 16:51:01 xor wrote:
>
> >>2) Adapt the git workflow: every developer have his own
> >> branch, only toad have access to the main repository, he will
> >> pull periodically (or on request)
> > This also su
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Sunday 12 April 2009 12:31:55 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
> > wrote:
> >> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-
On Saturday 11 April 2009 22:47:45 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> On Saturday 11 April 2009 16:51:01 xor wrote:
>
> >>2) Adapt the git workflow: every developer have his own
> >> branch, only toad have access to the main repository, he will
> >> pull periodically (or on request)
> > This also su
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
>> is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
>> might overwrite the
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
>>> is no option to disable it. Thi
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
>> is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
>> might overwrite the
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
>> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
>>> is no option to disable it. Thi
On Saturday 11 April 2009 23:49:23 David ?Bombe? Roden wrote:
> > Would that be propagated when devs update their local trees via pull?
> Yes, the remote branch heads are changed to whatever they?re pointing to in
> the remote repository. The local branches are either not touched or not
> merged w
On Saturday 11 April 2009 19:00:19 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Would that be propagated when devs update their local trees via pull?
Yes, the remote branch heads are changed to whatever they?re pointing to in
the remote repository. The local branches are either not touched or not
merged with the
On Saturday 11 April 2009 16:51:01 xor wrote:
>>2) Adapt the git workflow: every developer have his own
>> branch, only toad have access to the main repository, he will
>> pull periodically (or on request)
> This also sucks, development of plugins like Freetalk and WoT generates
> insaneous am
Hi all,
I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
might overwrite the whole repository, keeping no history behind. (for
those who are curious, google the 'git push --force').
So we have three optio
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
>> is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
>> might overwrite th
On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
> is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
> might overwrite the whole repository, keeping no history behind. (for
> those who a
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
>> is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
>> might overwrite th
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Cheng
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:40 PM
> To: Freenet Development
> Subject: [freenet-dev] GitHub and SVN-like workflow
>
>
On Saturday 11 April 2009 23:49:23 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> > Would that be propagated when devs update their local trees via pull?
> Yes, the remote branch heads are changed to whatever they’re pointing to in
> the remote repository. The local branches are either not touched or not
> merged w
On Saturday 11 April 2009 19:00:19 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Would that be propagated when devs update their local trees via pull?
Yes, the remote branch heads are changed to whatever they’re pointing to in
the remote repository. The local branches are either not touched or not
merged with the
On Saturday 11 April 2009 16:51:01 xor wrote:
>>2) Adapt the git workflow: every developer have his own
>> branch, only toad have access to the main repository, he will
>> pull periodically (or on request)
> This also sucks, development of plugins like Freetalk and WoT generates
> insaneous am
On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:39:54 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
> is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
> might overwrite the whole repository, keeping no history behind. (for
> those who a
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Cheng
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 4:40 PM
> To: Freenet Development
> Subject: [freenet-dev] GitHub and SVN-like workflow
>
>
Hi all,
I have just checked, GitHub allow "non-fast forward" update, and there
is no option to disable it. This means anybody have write access to it
might overwrite the whole repository, keeping no history behind. (for
those who are curious, google the 'git push --force').
So we have three optio
28 matches
Mail list logo
