On Friday 04 February 2011, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> The assumption is that any change that happened to
> these files since the transition to git is automatically generated, and
> any manual change I would have made would be overwritten by Script Kiddy
> on its next run.
No, scripty only overrides t
On Friday, 4 de February de 2011 17:13:31 Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > Whoever forgot to do forward-ports should be doing it *yesterday*.
>
> I know forward-ports should be done anyway and asap. But until they aren't
> done, we can't do the 4.6 merge.
Sure we can. It doesn't influence in anyway.
-
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 4 de February de 2011 15:18:58 Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> > (1) All back- and forward-porting was complete when SVN went
>> > read-only.
>>
>> IMHO this is not a safe assumption. As I said before, I found a missing
>> forward-port in kdepl
On Friday, 4 de February de 2011 15:18:58 Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > (1) All back- and forward-porting was complete when SVN went
> > read-only.
>
> IMHO this is not a safe assumption. As I said before, I found a missing
> forward-port in kdeplasma-addons, which is a 'small'
Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 2/3/2011 13:04, schrieb Johannes Sixt:
>> Before anybody begins to work in this way, someone with sufficient
>> knowlege must introduce the first real merge of the 4.6 branch into the
>> master branch. The conflicts must be resolved; or it is possible to punt
>> by using -
Em sexta-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2011, às 15:27:49, Oswald Buddenhagen
escreveu:
> and i'm strongly opposed to merging any previous branches back to master
> with -s ours, as this will effectively rewrite history (we did *not*
> merge back, and claiming that now will possibly hide actual omissions
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:47:08AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> (e) There is no (e).
>
as far as i'm concerned, there isn't even an (a).
i said about a year ago and repeated it later that *if* we wanted a
forward-merge based process, we would have to do the git migration
*before* branching off th
Am 2/4/2011 13:51, schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
> On 04.02.11 08:47:08, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Am 2/3/2011 13:04, schrieb Johannes Sixt:
>> The simplicity results from two assumptions:
>>
>> (1) All back- and forward-porting was complete when SVN went
>> read-only.
>
> I'm not sure that assumption is
On 04.02.11 08:47:08, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 2/3/2011 13:04, schrieb Johannes Sixt:
> > Before anybody begins to work in this way, someone with sufficient
> > knowlege must introduce the first real merge of the 4.6 branch into the
> > master branch. The conflicts must be resolved; or it is possi
On Friday, 4 de February de 2011 08:47:08 Johannes Sixt wrote:
> I can offer a set of git bundles that contain the merge results. (I don't
> have push access yet.) Anyone interested?
Send to me.
By the way, for the KDE readers here: git mergetool running kdiff3 is very
useful too. Select the "Lo
Am 2/3/2011 13:04, schrieb Johannes Sixt:
> Before anybody begins to work in this way, someone with sufficient
> knowlege must introduce the first real merge of the 4.6 branch into the
> master branch. The conflicts must be resolved; or it is possible to punt
> by using -s ours.
>
> As long as thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
