On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:37:53PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> So what was the right thing to do here? I have to admit I struggled a bit
> with the git portion of getting the whole thing landed. The changes were
> (mostly) isolated to a subdirectory, yet whatever git incantations I seemed
> to
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 02:15:21PM -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 17:11 -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> > Additionally, while working on a task branch, to resynch with master do
> > a rebase:
> >
> > $ rebase -i master
> >
> > rather than merging master down onto your tas
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 14:21 -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>> ..
>>> On the other hand I agree that merging from master just before merging
>>> to master is irritating and pointless.
>>
>> The apache master can’t be rebased… Period! Wor
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 14:37 -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> ...
> > On the other hand I agree that merging from master just before merging
> > to master is irritating and pointless.
>
>
> So what was the right thing to do here? I have to admit I struggled a bit
> with the git portion of getting
On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 14:21 -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > ..
> > On the other hand I agree that merging from master just before merging
> > to master is irritating and pointless.
>
> The apache master can’t be rebased… Period! Work as you wish in your topic
> branch, your master or whatever
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Stitcher
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 17:11 -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 04:16:29PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > > Rebasing and pushing is not a good option IMO. We have been using pull
> requests from GitHub and pushin
>
> I agree and disagree with this simplistic position.
>
> If (and only if) your task branch is yours and yours alone and no one
> has ever relied on it then you can safely rebase it. Actually I find
> that rebasing is a lot more useful to get my commits in a logical
> sequence of smaller work
On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 17:11 -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 04:16:29PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> > Rebasing and pushing is not a good option IMO. We have been using pull
> > requests from GitHub and pushing them through Apache. It's working very
> > well for us.
>
On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:30 -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> Would it be possible for someone (Rafi?) to fix the merge commits in the
Short answer is no!
I think you are asking for master's history to be changed and that is:
1) Not possible (fortunately) as the repo is locked down.
2) Not desira
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2014 02:38 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2014 12:16 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
I like the idea of pull requests and explicit peer reviews for changes.
>>
On 12/12/2014 02:38 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 12/12/2014 12:16 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
I like the idea of pull requests and explicit peer reviews for changes.
But it's above my pay grade to do anything more than envy such a wo
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:48:05AM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> In my experience there is no way to proper work with git without PRs and
>> peer review.. but that’s up to you guys.
>
> I feel like my comment, which was just a joke
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:48:05AM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> In my experience there is no way to proper work with git without PRs and peer
> review.. but that’s up to you guys.
I feel like my comment, which was just a joke, might have been taken the
wrong way. For that I apologize...
--
D
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
>> On 12/12/2014 12:16 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>>> I like the idea of pull requests and explicit peer reviews for changes.
>>> But it's above my pay grade to do anything mor
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:43:45PM +, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 12/12/2014 12:16 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> >I like the idea of pull requests and explicit peer reviews for changes.
> >But it's above my pay grade to do anything more than envy such a work
> >flow. :D
>
> Pay grade isn't relevant
On 12/12/2014 12:16 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
I like the idea of pull requests and explicit peer reviews for changes.
But it's above my pay grade to do anything more than envy such a work
flow. :D
Pay grade isn't relevant on an Apache project.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 06:47:06PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> We do a slightly different approach. If you guys are doing git I really think
> you guys should consider it.
> > 1. create a task branch : git checkout -b my-working-branch
> > 2. create that voodoo that you do
> > 3. when done, re
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:19:13PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> Right but you can’t ever push -f on an apache branch. you can rebase as much
> as you like .. and it’s awesome I agree…
> But others would lose reference if you rebased and pushed -f.. that’s why
> it’s forbidden at the apache git
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 04:16:29PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> Rebasing and pushing is not a good option IMO. We have been using pull
>> requests from GitHub and pushing them through Apache. It's working very well
>> for us.
>>
We do a slightly different approach. If you guys are doing git I really think
you guys should consider it.
> 1. create a task branch : git checkout -b my-working-branch
> 2. create that voodoo that you do
> 3. when done, rebase your task branch on master : git rebase -i master
4. push to your git
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 04:16:29PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> Rebasing and pushing is not a good option IMO. We have been using pull
> requests from GitHub and pushing them through Apache. It's working very well
> for us.
>
> Committing directly to Apachea may get you these issues.
>
> W
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 04:16:29PM -0500, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> Rebasing and pushing is not a good option IMO. We have been using pull
> requests from GitHub and pushing them through Apache. It's working very well
> for us.
>
> Committing directly to Apachea may get you these issues.
>
> W
Rebasing and pushing is not a good option IMO. We have been using pull requests
from GitHub and pushing them through Apache. It's working very well for us.
Committing directly to Apachea may get you these issues.
We can provide you guys more information on how we are doing on activemq6 if
yo
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 02:35:05PM -0500, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Can you provide a bit more detail? I'm not the most expert git user, so I'm
> not sure exactly what you're asking for, much less how to do it.
In my case, my usual workflow is to do small changes and commit them
locally. If a chan
If you pushed invalid commits the easier way is to revert them.
If you really want commits out then you will need someone from infra to push -f
as forced is disabled at Apache repos.
> On Dec 11, 2014, at 15:36, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
> Can you provide a bit more detail? I'm not the most
Can you provide a bit more detail? I'm not the most expert git user, so I'm
not sure exactly what you're asking for, much less how to do it.
--Rafael
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Darryl L. Pierce
wrote:
>
> Would it be possible for someone (Rafi?) to fix the merge commits in the
> Git repo?
Would it be possible for someone (Rafi?) to fix the merge commits in the
Git repo? I'm working on some stuff and, when I tried to do a rebase I
accidentally went a few commits further back and git wanted to then
rebase 65 commits...
On our individual ends, once it's done, we should be able to just
27 matches
Mail list logo
