Yes, that was it, thanks.
> On 20 Jul 2019, at 10:23 am, Chris Morley wrote:
>
> If it's just Roberts's stuff in 2.8 you are worried about - it seems to merge
> cleanly to master - go for it.
>
> Chris
>
>
> From: Phillip Carter
> Sent: July 20, 2019 12:02 A
If it's just Roberts's stuff in 2.8 you are worried about - it seems to merge
cleanly to master - go for it.
Chris
From: Phillip Carter
Sent: July 20, 2019 12:02 AM
To: linuxcnc-developers
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Git lost
Sorry, I don’t want to actually
Yep, it scared the heck out of me...
> On 20 Jul 2019, at 10:17 am, Chris Morley wrote:
>
> So you were wanting to merge just your work and leave the other stuff to be
> merged later?
> That would be a nice feature - cherry-pick kinda does this but IIRC it can
> complicate merges later..
>
>
So you were wanting to merge just your work and leave the other stuff to be
merged later?
That would be a nice feature - cherry-pick kinda does this but IIRC it can
complicate merges later..
Now you can see why it's nice when a committer merges things right away so they
can deal with their own
Sorry, I don’t want to actually do this.
I was just asking the question because I saw all those commits and I wasn’t
sure what to do.
I really don’t want to break anything...
> On 20 Jul 2019, at 9:55 am, Chris Morley wrote:
>
> I too haven't done this exact thing - i have had completely diff
I too haven't done this exact thing - i have had completely different changes
go into release vrs master, so there was a conflict and I could pick the right
code - big pain.
But look at this, I think it covers your use case:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/727994/git-skipping-specific-commits
On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 at 00:35, Phillip Carter
wrote:
What happens in the case that something was meant for 2.8 but not for
> master, how is that prevented from being merged up in the future?
That's a very good question. And one to which I wish I had the answer
--
atp
"A motorcycle is a bicycle
> On 20 Jul 2019, at 12:13 am, andy pugh wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 10:54, Phillip Carter
> wrote:
>
>> Oops, yes, after Tested should be Switched to master
>
>
> OK, so you are about to merge some changes that are in 2.8, not in master,
> and were not made by you.
>
Correct
> I t
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 10:54, Phillip Carter
wrote:
> Oops, yes, after Tested should be Switched to master
OK, so you are about to merge some changes that are in 2.8, not in master,
and were not made by you.
I think that is probably OK. The norm in LinuxCNC is to put changes in the
earliest br
Oops, yes, after Tested should be Switched to master.Cheers, Phill
Original message From: andy pugh Date:
19/7/19 7:27 pm (GMT+10:00) To: EMC developers
Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Git lost
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 08:01, Phillip Carter wrote:> I
am working on 2.8 locally,
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 08:01, Phillip Carter
wrote:
> I am working on 2.8 locally, I have:
> Pulled from origin
> Modified some files
> Committed
> Tested
> Switched to 2.8
> Pulled from origin
> Merged 2.8
> Now there are commits that I am not sure belong in master
>
Should one of those 2.8s be
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 01:35, Randy Steiner via Emc-developers <
emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> I have a pi 4 on order and we have a local interest to make it work. As
> soon as I get it in I can take a crack at it.
>
Hakan has already done some experiments with Pi4 and a Mesa et
I am working on 2.8 locally, I have:
Pulled from origin
Modified some files
Committed
Tested
Switched to 2.8
Pulled from origin
Merged 2.8
Now there are commits that I am not sure belong in master
I am not sure where to go from here.
___
Emc-developer
13 matches
Mail list logo
