On Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 04:44:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Friday, 24 March 2017 at 16:34:46 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 20:16:00 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
git rebase master my_branch
git checkout master
git merge --no-ff my_branch
Yes, that's about what we aim for, r
On Friday, 24 March 2017 at 16:34:46 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 20:16:00 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
git rebase master my_branch
git checkout master
git merge --no-ff my_branch
Yes, that's about what we aim for, rebase w/ --autosquash
though, so that people can `git com
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 20:16:00 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
git rebase master my_branch
git checkout master
git merge --no-ff my_branch
Yes, that's about what we aim for, rebase w/ --autosquash though,
so that people can `git commit --fixup` new fixup commits to open
PRs w/o leaving noise b
On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 01:25:37 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 17:58:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 12:45:45 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's not good either. Why would I w
It's common practice for "merge" commits to have the form:
"merge work from some/branch, fix PR #somenumber".
This basically tells me nothing about what this commit does.
We already know it's a merge commit, we don't care so much what
branch it's from, and we don't want to dig into the bug trac
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 17:58:06 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 12:45:45 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's not good either. Why would I want to look at a DAG when
the serie of event is strictly linear to begi
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 05:10:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:14:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
This is making the history very spaghettified. Is that
possible to have the bot rebase/squash commits and then
pushing ?
I don't really agree with the argument. A merge
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 12:45:45 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's not good either. Why would I want to look at a DAG when
the serie of event is strictly linear to begin with ?
Not sure what you mean here. The way it's presente
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 11:59:42 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
It's not good either. Why would I want to look at a DAG when
the serie of event is strictly linear to begin with ?
Not sure what you mean here. The way it's presented is not a DAG.
Yes, that's why rebasing makes thing clearer. Nobody
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 at 01:39:39 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 12:25:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Because a picture is clearer than a thousand words:
What this tells me is that the default way git-log presents
history is not very useful. Consider this presentatio
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 12:25:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Because a picture is clearer than a thousand words:
What this tells me is that the default way git-log presents
history is not very useful. Consider this presentation of the
same information:
08ae52d8 The Dlang Bot: Merge pull reque
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 12:25:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
In addition there are a bunch of practical issues with this way
of doing things. First there is no given that any intermediate
state is sound, or even builds at all. That makes it very hard
to bissect anything.
You bissect on master a
On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 05:10:04 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:14:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
This is making the history very spaghettified. Is that
possible to have the bot rebase/squash commits and then
pushing ?
I don't really agree with the argument. A merge
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:14:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
This is making the history very spaghettified. Is that possible
to have the bot rebase/squash commits and then pushing ?
I don't really agree with the argument. A merge commit is a clear
way to integrate changes from a PR/branch.
Ju
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:23:00 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:14:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
This is making the history very spaghettified. Is that
possible to have the bot rebase/squash commits and then
pushing ?
Arf I fat fingered the title, i meant the dlang
On Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 13:14:31 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
This is making the history very spaghettified. Is that possible
to have the bot rebase/squash commits and then pushing ?
Arf I fat fingered the title, i meant the dlang bot.
This is making the history very spaghettified. Is that possible
to have the bot rebase/squash commits and then pushing ?
17 matches
Mail list logo
