On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 12:49:22 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Then it should have been 2 PR or more to begin with. Splitting
PR in smaller ones is a good practice in general,
This is probably true for many cases, but I don't th
On Friday, 24 March 2017 at 09:27:54 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Yep, because of the misuse-worst-case arguments. Simple
solutions that guard against such mistakes are welcome. E.g. we
could allow squashing if all commits' commit messages except
the first one's start with "[SQUASH] " or "fix
On Friday, 24 March 2017 at 05:56:57 UTC, Seb wrote:
On Friday, 24 March 2017 at 05:10:54 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
I think that if you do not think that discussing this subject
any further is worth your time, then you shouldn't allocate
any of your time time towards it. As previously ment
On Friday, 24 March 2017 at 05:10:54 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
I think that if you do not think that discussing this subject
any further is worth your time, then you shouldn't allocate any
of your time time towards it. As previously mentioned, I don't
think the arguments presented here war
On Thursday, 23 March 2017 at 22:35:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Far as I understand (and please do correct me if I'm wrong)
what's being discussed now does not qualify as new research and
is a reopening of a previous discussion with no new evidence,
Actually I think there were some inte
On 3/23/17 4:57 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 17:16:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm a bit confused. This got settled a while ago, in part to avoid
silly debates over the inconsequential. Our organization prefers
squash before commit in the majority of cases.
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 02:57:04 Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 17:16:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
>
> wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused. This got settled a while ago, in part to
> > avoid silly debates over the inconsequential. Our organization
> > pre
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 17:16:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I'm a bit confused. This got settled a while ago, in part to
avoid silly debates over the inconsequential. Our organization
prefers squash before commit in the majority of cases. For a
minority of pull requests (that touch
I'm a bit confused. This got settled a while ago, in part to avoid silly
debates over the inconsequential. Our organization prefers squash before
commit in the majority of cases. For a minority of pull requests (that
touch many files, are semi-mechanical etc) multiple commits in one PR
are fine
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 15:59:29 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
4 out of your 6 examples use squash.
No, and at this point I don't know if you're being willfully
ignorant or plainly malicious.
The Gerrit/Phabricator equivalent of squashing GitHub PRs would
be to squash multiple inter-dependen
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 09:02:24 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 18:07:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Large companies such as Google or Facebook
A blind appeal to authority is fallacious, but it's still
worthwhile to see what others are doing. I think it's importa
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 11:35:11 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 11:26:49 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:49:37 UTC, Vladimir
Panteleev wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:43:46 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
You can configure Gerrit to do
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 11:26:49 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:49:37 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:43:46 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
You can configure Gerrit to do virtually anything, including
squashing, even cherry-pick if you fancy.
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:49:37 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:43:46 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 09:02:24 UTC, Vladimir
Panteleev wrote:
Importantly, Gerrit does not squash commits - you are
expected to squash fixup commits yours
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 10:43:46 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 09:02:24 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Importantly, Gerrit does not squash commits - you are expected
to squash fixup commits yourself.
You can configure Gerrit to do virtually anything, including
squ
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 09:02:24 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Importantly, Gerrit does not squash commits - you are expected
to squash fixup commits yourself.
You can configure Gerrit to do virtually anything, including
squashing, even cherry-pick if you fancy.
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 18:07:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Large companies such as Google or Facebook
A blind appeal to authority is fallacious, but it's still
worthwhile to see what others are doing. I think it's important
to look at projects that are similar to our own, so I looked at
wha
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 18:07:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
You have presented 0 arguments so far, and dismissed both facts
and argument that were presented to you (one of them as unfair,
because fairness and correctness surely are correlated).
This is factually wrong, as is obvious from readi
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 12:49:22 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
there are ample proof that is increase the quality of the code
review,
OK, where is the proof?
Large companies such as Google or Facebook measure these things.
You have presented 0 arguments so far, and dismissed both facts
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Then it should have been 2 PR or more to begin with. Splitting
PR in smaller ones is a good practice in general,
This is probably true for many cases, but I don't think it's a
general truth.
First, there are extreme cases like these
20 matches
Mail list logo
