On 2013-11-18 14:05, Russel Winder wrote:
I think we are agreeing and saying the same thing really, once a branch
or tag is made public it shouldn't be rebased.
I'm saying that even if a branch is made public it's ok to rebase. This
happens all the time for pull requests. The important thing
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 08:57 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2013-11-16 13:47, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> > I always thought it was de rigueur never to rebase a publicly published
> > repository.
>
> I think the idea is to rebase the topic branch. Make sure all new
> changes to master comes first
On 2013-11-16 13:47, Russel Winder wrote:
I always thought it was de rigueur never to rebase a publicly published
repository.
I think the idea is to rebase the topic branch. Make sure all new
changes to master comes first, then the changes to the topic branch.
Usually it's perfectly fine to
On Friday, 15 November 2013 at 22:36:14 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
Currently, the merge commits provide important information:
which commits belong in which pull request, who merged the pull
request and when. I realize that merges visually clutter the
history in most git clients, however IM
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 23:51 +0100, qznc wrote:
[…]
> Yay, another war about git workflows. :)
[…]
I always thought it was de rigueur never to rebase a publicly published
repository.
--
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder t:
On Friday, 15 November 2013 at 23:07:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Maybe we should incorporate druntime/phobos as submodules in
the dmd
repos? This will greatly help in tracking down regressions with
git
bisect (I remember there were a few that I couldn't track down
because
of the difficulty of fin
On Friday, 15 November 2013 at 23:07:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Maybe we should incorporate druntime/phobos as submodules in
the dmd repos?
My plan for the bisect tool is to build a D.git repo, with a
linear history, which contains DMD, Druntime and Phobos as
subprojects.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:51:03PM +0100, qznc wrote:
[...]
> It is sad that D history cannot be nicely tracked, because it is
> split into three repositories without git having a clue about
> dependencies between them.
>
> At work we have a C compiler frontend [0] and a backend [1] in
> different
On Friday, 15 November 2013 at 22:36:14 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
This post is regarding this discussion in the mailing list, to
which I currently can't post:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/20131115141721.gr30...@llucax.com.ar
There appears to be an unanimous opinion that GitHub should
allo
This post is regarding this discussion in the mailing list, to
which I currently can't post:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/20131115141721.gr30...@llucax.com.ar
There appears to be an unanimous opinion that GitHub should allow
merging pull requests by rebasing them onto master, and
fast-forwardi
10 matches
Mail list logo
