Sean Farley wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've started to work on another repo implementing
> what Erik suggested. It removes 'stacks' (since that's obviously out of
> scope) and implements a topic-like branch workflow. So far, it's been a
> good experiment and requires very little change. I'll
Pierre-Yves David writes:
> On 11/01/2016 05:56 AM, Sean Farley wrote:
>> Pierre-Yves David writes:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 10/15/2016 08:47 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
> On Fri,
On 11/01/2016 04:55 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Sean Farley > wrote:
Pierre-Yves David > writes:
> On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David
Gregory Szorc writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
>
>> Pierre-Yves David writes:
>>
>> > On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10/15/2016 08:47 AM, Yuya Nishihara
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> Pierre-Yves David writes:
>
> > On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/15/2016 08:47 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:13:56 -0700, Sean
On 11/01/2016 05:56 AM, Sean Farley wrote:
Pierre-Yves David writes:
On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 10/15/2016 08:47 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:13:56 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
Pierre-Yves David
Pierre-Yves David writes:
> On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/15/2016 08:47 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:13:56 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
Pierre-Yves David writes:
> So,
On 10/15/2016 04:18 PM, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
On 10/15/2016 08:47 AM, Yuya Nishihara wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:13:56 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
Pierre-Yves David writes:
So, the other branch of that thread made me realised that we cannot do
this
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:13:56 -0700, Sean Farley wrote:
> Pierre-Yves David writes:
> > So, the other branch of that thread made me realised that we cannot do
> > this "BRANCH:TOPIC" storage in the current "branch" field.
> >
> > An important part of topic is to
Pierre-Yves David writes:
> On 10/14/2016 05:48 PM, Erik van Zijst wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Pierre-Yves David
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, thanks for exploring
On 10/14/2016 05:48 PM, Erik van Zijst wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Pierre-Yves David
>
wrote:
So, thanks for exploring possibilities to make this frontier thiner.
However, I can see some issues with
On 10/14/2016 07:29 PM, Erik van Zijst wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Pierre-Yves David
wrote:
If we use the same field for either topic or name branch a changeset can
either be:
* on a named branch but no topic
* on a topic but no named branch (so
> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Erik van Zijst wrote:
>
>> * on a named branch but no topic
>> * on a topic but no named branch (so default branch)
>
> Why would a topic imply that it is on the default branch? I don't
> think I see that. In my mental model a topic is
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Pierre-Yves David
wrote:
> If we use the same field for either topic or name branch a changeset can
> either be:
>
> * on a named branch but no topic
> * on a topic but no named branch (so default branch)
Why would a topic imply
Erik van Zijst writes:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Pierre-Yves David <
> pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, thanks for exploring possibilities to make this frontier thiner.
>> However, I can see some issues with some aspects of this proposal,
On 10/14/2016 05:48 PM, Erik van Zijst wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Pierre-Yves David
>
wrote:
So, thanks for exploring possibilities to make this frontier thiner.
However, I can see some issues with some
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Pierre-Yves David <
pierre-yves.da...@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
> So, thanks for exploring possibilities to make this frontier thiner.
> However, I can see some issues with some aspects of this proposal, using
> the same field for either branch or topic make them
17 matches
Mail list logo