Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone
attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps
that we can start working on?
Is there any deadline or
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
FWIW, I am not convinced yet why we would even want git continue
in the first place, so I won't be the one who would be suggesting a
migration path.
Okay, I'm confused now. You were the one who suggested a unified git
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Andrew Wong wrote:
On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
rid of this inconsistency?
You can actually rely on rebase to run the
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone
attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps
that we can start working on?
Is there any deadline or migration path needed? Depending on the
design, it might be possible
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
I'd really to have that final 'git continue' in Git 2.0. Can someone
attempt to break up the migration path into manageable logical steps
that we can start working on?
Is there any deadline or migration path needed?
Andrew Wong wrote:
On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
rid of this inconsistency?
You can actually rely on rebase to run the appropriate command.
Didn't Junio explicitly mention that this is
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Andrew Wong wrote:
You can actually rely on rebase to run the appropriate command.
Didn't Junio explicitly mention that this is undesirable earlier (from
the point of view of `rebase -i` design)?
I missed the earlier discussion. Does the documentation (e.g.,
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes:
Andrew Wong wrote:
On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
rid of this inconsistency?
You can actually rely on rebase to run the appropriate command.
On 3/19/13, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote:
I know that this is expected behavior, but is there an easy way to get
rid of this inconsistency?
You can actually rely on rebase to run the appropriate command. In
the first edit commit (the_
no conflict one), I usually run only git
9 matches
Mail list logo
