On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
This branch has a merge in it, due to conflicts with the Intel drm tree
you already pulled. I've asked Eric to not send you direct pulls, he
mentioned you said he should, but it really screws over my tree. I don't
mind direct pulls outside the
This branch has a merge in it, due to conflicts with the Intel drm tree
you already pulled. I've asked Eric to not send you direct pulls, he
mentioned you said he should, but it really screws over my tree. I don't
mind direct pulls outside the merge window as it usually smaller bug
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
My plans from now on are just to send you non-linear trees, whenever I
merge a patch into my next tree thats when it stays in there, I'll pull
Eric's tree directly into my tree and then I'll send the results, I
thought we cared about a clean merge
I want clean history, but that really means (a) clean and (b) history.
People can (and probably should) rebase their _private_ trees (their own
work). That's a _cleanup_. But never other peoples code. That's a destroy
history
So the history part is fairly easy. There's only one major
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
- Don't merge upstream code at random points.
You should _never_ pull my tree at random points (this was my biggest
issue with early git users - many developers would just pull my current
random tree-of-the-day into their
