One thing that could help move this along Eric is a proposal (
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Proposals ) - since this is a
formal change and we need the PMC understand and make the choice of license
appropriately. Are you comfortable writing a proposal on the wiki? There is
a template t
Thanks for the reminder. YSLD should be ready as an extension (docs were
added downstream to geoserver), need to hunt down Dave for vector tiles. I
have a holiday coming up which I can use to isolate abstract datastore as
an unsupported module.
--
Jody Garnett
On 29 August 2016 at 06:31, Andrea Ai
Title: Message Title
Andreas W created an
I have been using that button (I know it is not the default) fairly
frequently when merging (especially when it is a series of small commits).
I trust that we can still choose to "merge" when appropriate.
--
Jody Garnett
On 27 August 2016 at 10:13, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> I'd certainly be +1 on t
+1 to enable this feature.
In my view, the use of this feature should be at merger discretion.
Squashing can be quite handy to improve clarity and clean up a
stream-of-consciousness pull request, but if there are only a couple of
commits by different authors or on different topics included in t
Great, that sounds like the best of both worlds!
Kind regards,
Ben.
On 28/08/16 18:41, Brad Hards wrote:
> I note that it modifies the commit message "headline" to include a ref to the
> pull request, so you can still see where it came from.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies
Director
Transient Software Li
Yes, well, at the very least there is no merge commit, so that's already a
difference :-p
There is the geopackage one with 20 commits if you want to try something
"larger", I only had minor comments about it and
the rest of the test could be implemented in a different pull. :-D
Cheers
Andrea
On T
I did try it, but there was only one commit in that PR :-(
Ian
On 30 August 2016 at 15:39, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> Hey Ian,
> looks like you used the new merge mode for this pull request?
> https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/1290
>
> I don't see a merge commit in the history
>
> Cheers
> An
Hey Ian,
looks like you used the new merge mode for this pull request?
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/1290
I don't see a merge commit in the history
Cheers
Andrea
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> I just went there, it's already checked as far as I can
Hi Ian,
I just went there, it's already checked as far as I can see?
[image: Inline image 1]
Maybe someone beated me to the punch :-p
Cheers
Andrea
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ian Turton wrote:
> So who is a Repository administrator on GeoTools?
>
> Ian
>
> On 30 August 2016 at 14:45, C
So who is a Repository administrator on GeoTools?
Ian
On 30 August 2016 at 14:45, Christian Mueller <
christian.muel...@os-solutions.at> wrote:
> +1 from here
> Christian
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys, yup, definitely addressed, I wasn’t sure from
+1 from here
Christian
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Justin Deoliveira
wrote:
> Hey guys, yup, definitely addressed, I wasn’t sure from the original post
> if this was an “always squash” but it’s clearly not. +1 for me.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:46 AM Andrea Aime
> wrote:
>
>> I see no m
Hey guys, yup, definitely addressed, I wasn’t sure from the original post
if this was an “always squash” but it’s clearly not. +1 for me.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:46 AM Andrea Aime
wrote:
> I see no more feedback,
> Justin, were your concerns addressed?
> Anyone else?
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
>
>
I see no more feedback,
Justin, were your concerns addressed?
Anyone else?
Cheers
Andrea
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Brad Hards wrote:
> > Oooh... does that mean we also get rid of the blasted merge commit and
> > retain
> > a more linear history? :-)
> Indeed it does.
>
> https://github.
14 matches
Mail list logo
