On 15 April 2017 at 03:15, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 14.04.17 17:02, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> That was exactly my reaction when Serhiy pointed it out - I started to
>> argue the point, but then invalidated all my own arguments before
>> actually posting anything :)
>
> I don't remember I said any
On 14.04.17 17:02, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 12 April 2017 at 01:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Since we do the squash & merge to get an atomic commit at the end, it
doesn't make sense to do any force pushes along the way.
I was going to argu
On 12 April 2017 at 01:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Since we do the squash & merge to get an atomic commit at the end, it
>> doesn't make sense to do any force pushes along the way.
>
>
> I was going to argue with this, but then I realiz
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Since we do the squash & merge to get an atomic commit at the end, it
> doesn't make sense to do any force pushes along the way.
>
I was going to argue with this, but then I realized you're right. We
shouldn't need rebase any more, merge sho
On 12 April 2017 at 00:21, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:53:44 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> - When the contributor makes multiple local commits without pushing to the
>> PR, I recommend using --amend unless they have several commits that
>> actually are logically distinct a
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:53:44 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> - When the contributor makes multiple local commits without pushing to the
> PR, I recommend using --amend unless they have several commits that
> actually are logically distinct and relevant to the reviewer. (--amend is
> especially im
