Jon, Kyle, Brian,
Thanks a lot for your answers!
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jon Seymour jon.seym...@gmail.com wrote:
From the perspective of topic there had been no change to the
definition of bar(), hence there was no change to contribute to the
eventual merge with master.
One way
From the perspective of topic there had been no change to the
definition of bar(), hence there was no change to contribute to the
eventual merge with master.
One way to avoid this kind of problem is to avoid making (or
cherry-picking) the same change on different branches, but instead use
a merge
Hi!
Let's say I have two identical branches: master and topic. In master I
remove some code, i.e. function bar(). In topic I do the same (commit)
and after some time I realize I need bar() and revert previous commit
with removal.
So I end with master with no bar() and topic with bar() in its
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:26:25PM +0400, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote:
Hi!
Let's say I have two identical branches: master and topic. In master I
remove some code, i.e. function bar(). In topic I do the same (commit)
and after some time I realize I need bar() and revert previous commit
with
On Nov 29, 2013, at 06:26, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote:
Let's say I have two identical branches: master and topic. In master I
remove some code, i.e. function bar(). In topic I do the same (commit)
and after some time I realize I need bar() and revert previous commit
with removal.
So I end with master
5 matches
Mail list logo