On 05/13/2011 09:05 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 05/13/2011 12:36 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request g
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 05/13/2011 12:36 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
>>> merged twice; all commit
On 05/13/2011 12:36 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same cha
Hi,
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>
> It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
> merged OK, but we shouldn't make th
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 13:49 -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> Surely other projects have dealt with this.
We have for instance adopted a very strict set of policies on that:
1) Never branch of anything except for master or x.y.z-stable branches
2) Never rebase master or x.y.z-stable branches, unle
On 05/06/2011 09:24 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2011/5/6 Dag Sverre Seljebotn:
On 05/06/2011 08:20 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2011/5/6 Robert Bradshaw:
I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
Maybe eve
2011/5/6 Dag Sverre Seljebotn :
> On 05/06/2011 08:20 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
>>
>> 2011/5/6 Robert Bradshaw:
>>>
>>> I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
>>> be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
>>> Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading u
On 05/06/2011 09:14 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 05/05/2011 11:07 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading underscore if people like
On 05/05/2011 11:07 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading underscore if people like that.
I've seen leading underscore being used by ot
On 05/06/2011 08:20 AM, Vitja Makarov wrote:
2011/5/6 Robert Bradshaw:
I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading underscore if people like that.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 a
2011/5/6 Robert Bradshaw :
> I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
> be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
> Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading underscore if people like that.
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wro
I don't like the default to be "don't pull from me"--I'd rather there
be some convention to indicate a branch is being used as a queue.
Maybe even foo-queue, or a leading underscore if people like that.
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> Yes, that is the only time it ha
Yes, that is the only time it happens.
Do we agree on a) ask before you pull anything that is not in cython/* (ie in
private repos), b) document it in hackerguide?
DS
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:22 P
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.05.2011 21:52:
>>
>> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
>> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>
> What (I think) happened, was that Vitja pulled in Mark's changes into his
On 5 May 2011 22:22, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.05.2011 21:52:
>>
>> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
>> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>
> What (I think) happened, was that Vitja pulled in Mark's changes into his
> unreachab
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 05.05.2011 21:52:
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
What (I think) happened, was that Vitja pulled in Mark's changes into his
unreachable code removal branch, and they ended up in his pull r
On 05/05/2011 10:09 PM, mark florisson wrote:
On 5 May 2011 21:52, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
merged OK, b
mark florisson, 05.05.2011 22:09:
I think the rebasing is pretty elegant, so I'm +1 on that, as long as
everyone agrees because those duplicated commits are nasty. I'm
surprised git didn't issue an error to prevent this.
I'm not surprised at all.
Stefan
On 5 May 2011 21:52, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
> merged twice; all commits show up two times.
>
> It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
> merged OK, but we shouldn't make this a habit. For i
There was just a messup in git history: Mark's OpenMP pull request got
merged twice; all commits show up two times.
It doesn't matter, since the two openmp branches with the same changes
merged OK, but we shouldn't make this a habit. For instance, the openMP
commits also show up as part of vit
20 matches
Mail list logo
