On 18/05/2011 5:14 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
> 3) We don't have to always push sets of changes from an original pull
> request to upstream; they can be consolidated using any of a variety of
> methods to form a new local feature branch with the same net effect but
> fewer commits (maybe only one), and
On Tue, 17 May 2011 16:14:53 -0400, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Darned if I know what I did differently that time. (I'm sure I hit
> git's "misunderstanding" feature again).
>
> It only seems to have affected 2 or 3 of the pull requests -- I suspect
> rebasing those branches off of the current ma
On 05/17/2011 10:14 AM, Michael Droettboom wrote:
> Darned if I know what I did differently that time. (I'm sure I hit
> git's "misunderstanding" feature again).
>
> It only seems to have affected 2 or 3 of the pull requests -- I suspect
> rebasing those branches off of the current master would fi
Darned if I know what I did differently that time. (I'm sure I hit
git's "misunderstanding" feature again).
It only seems to have affected 2 or 3 of the pull requests -- I suspect
rebasing those branches off of the current master would fix the problem,
but maybe there's an easier way.
Mike
O
I suspect that the series of May 6 commits ending with
a50874b711983cba505ecdb2801c4996eccf3812 has tangled the history in such
a way that some (but not all) older pull requests on github like this one
https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/1
are showing hundreds of commits and diffs.
E
