Felipe Contreras writes:
> My gut feeling is that we should do it the way the Bazaar UI does it,
> I don't have any evidence that there's anything wrong with the current
> code, which Bazaar seems to but have, but for different purposes which
> are hard to explain. I would rather avoid surprises.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Thomas Rast writes:
>>
>>> Felipe Contreras writes:
>>>
Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>>>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Rast writes:
>
>> Felipe Contreras writes:
>>
>>> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
>>> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>>>
>>> Also, add a non-ff check.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
Thomas Rast writes:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
>> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>>
>> Also, add a non-ff check.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
>> ---
>>
>> This patch should probably go to maint, as the result
Felipe Contreras writes:
> Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
> is the way bazaar's UI does it.
>
> Also, add a non-ff check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
> ---
>
> This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
> currentl
Not just randomly synchronize the revisions with no checks at all. This
is the way bazaar's UI does it.
Also, add a non-ff check.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras
---
This patch should probably go to maint, as the results of pushing the way we
currently push are not really understood. Perhaps it
6 matches
Mail list logo