On Sunday 19 February 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Laszlo Papp wrote:
> >> Is there already something like that ?
> >
> > There is already something here:
> http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Git_Workflow#Local_branches_are_always_
> rebased.2C_remote_branches_never
>
> > Might be a good idea to
On 19.02.12 17:49:59, Parker Coates wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:58, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> > I guess I should get used to using gitk.
>
> This is slightly off topic, but with all this talk of gitk, I thought
> it'd be a good time to recommend QGit [1]. It's an alternative git
> histor
söndagen den 19 februari 2012 14.36.07 skrev Stephen Kelly:
> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
> Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
> need to exist.
Heh, sounds familiar, the same thing was brought up when Qt switched to
2012/2/19 Ben Cooksley :
>
> First, our hooks are in python - so any changes would need to be in Python
> as well.
I can speak a bit of python, would be a nice way for learning more :)
>
> Second, there is a legitimate use for pushing merge commits - namely
> integrating a seperate remote branch.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:58, Anne-Marie Mahfouf wrote:
> I guess I should get used to using gitk.
This is slightly off topic, but with all this talk of gitk, I thought
it'd be a good time to recommend QGit [1]. It's an alternative git
history viewer with a friendlier interface built on top of a
Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2012 7:12 AM, "Stephen Kelly" wrote:
>>
>> Dario Freddi wrote:
>>
>> > 2012/2/19 Stephen Kelly :
>> >> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi there,
>> >>>
>> >>> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
>> >>> Something I noticed
On Feb 20, 2012 7:12 AM, "Stephen Kelly" wrote:
>
> Dario Freddi wrote:
>
> > 2012/2/19 Stephen Kelly :
> >> Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hi there,
> >>>
> >>> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
> >>> Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge
Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> Is there already something like that ?
>
> There is already something here:
>
http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Git_Workflow#Local_branches_are_always_rebased.2C_remote_branches_never
>
> Might be a good idea to extend it with "git config
> branch.autosetuprebase always"
> Is there already something like that ?
There is already something here:
http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Git_Workflow#Local_branches_are_always_rebased.2C_remote_branches_never
Might be a good idea to extend it with "git config
branch.autosetuprebase always" and the gitk advice.
-- Laszlo
Hi,
> There's some ideas for such hooks on the Internet already:
Yes, there are things flowing around, whereas it would be nice to have
a "Getting started" frameworks contribution page, where the advices
(requirements) could be mentioned, like this. Is there already
something like that ?
Best Re
Dario Freddi wrote:
> 2012/2/19 Stephen Kelly :
>> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
>>> Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
>>> need to exist.
>>
>> Ugh. Yet more of this just
2012/2/19 Stephen Kelly :
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
>> Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
>> need to exist.
>
> Ugh. Yet more of this just appeared... Recent history in th
On 02/19/2012 04:58 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Stephen Kelly wrote:
Hi there,
I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
need to exist.
Ugh. Yet more of this just appeared... Recent history in the
Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
> Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
> need to exist.
Ugh. Yet more of this just appeared... Recent history in the frameworks
branch looks far more
Matt Williams wrote:
>> * Use gitk --all to see what would happen if you push. You should never
>> have to create merge commits. If you do, then please clean it up before
>> pushing.
>
> Yes, I realised after the fact that I had created one of these so
> sorry about that. I've already now switched
On domingo, 19 de fevereiro de 2012 14.42.30, Matt Williams wrote:
> Yes, I realised after the fact that I had created one of these so
> sorry about that. I've already now switched to using --rebase. If one
> does accidentally create one of these merge commits, how can they fix
> it before they pus
On 19 February 2012 13:36, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
> Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
> need to exist.
>
> Please use `gitk` to see them.
>
> The unneeded merge commits actua
Hi there,
I was reviewing the changes in the frameworks branch from yesterday.
Something I noticed was that there are a lot of merge commits that don't
need to exist.
Please use `gitk` to see them.
The unneeded merge commits actually make it harder to follow frameworks for
me. It breaks thin
18 matches
Mail list logo
