> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 01:00, Manish Goregaokar a écrit :
>
> So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to squash
> https://github.com/servo/servo/pull/18750 and it seemed like we have
> different ideas of how "atomic" commits should be before landing.
It should definitely have been squashed,
> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 02:10, Gregory Szorc a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Manish Goregaokar
> wrote:
>
>>
>
> The Firefox repo has the same dilemma. Ideally history is good down to the
> commit level. In reality, we only test on "push heads" (commits that were
> heads at time of
Let me add some necessary additions to this quite rude email...
I am sorry, Manish.
> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 10:33, Anthony Ramine a écrit :
>
>
>> Le 3 nov. 2017 à 01:00, Manish Goregaokar a écrit :
>>
>> So I and emilio were discussing whether or not to squash
>> https://github.com/servo/servo/p
> "Always been the case" = I remember back in 2015 that reviewers often
asked me whether intermediate commits were building properly. Maybe that
was just out of curiosity, but to me it sounded like something we should
strive for.
To be clear; I'm talking about *passing all tests*, not building. It
4 matches
Mail list logo
