A few comments, but otherwise LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/5484043/diff/7001/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5484043/diff/7001/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi#newcode318
I did say earlier that git rebase was analogous to saving a series of
commits and applying them, but there is a difference in that `git rebase
http://codereview.appspot.com/5484043/diff/7001/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi (right):
I did say earlier that git rebase was analogous to saving a series of
commits and applying them, but there is a difference in that `git rebase
http://codereview.appspot.com/5484043/diff/7001/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi (right):
Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com writes:
2011/12/13 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu:
On 12/13/11 7:06 AM, gra...@percival-music.ca gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
Second draft uploaded; more robust with rebases instead of merge.
Question: the old docs want translators to avoid
thanks, Keith! I've made all the changes other than the two noted
below.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5484043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/source-code.itexi (right):
Second draft uploaded; more robust with rebases instead of merge.
Question: the old docs want translators to avoid rebasing for some
reason. Is that reason still valid? Because it would be very nice if
we didn't have to have a separate section of git for translators.
On 12/13/11 7:06 AM, gra...@percival-music.ca gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
Second draft uploaded; more robust with rebases instead of merge.
Question: the old docs want translators to avoid rebasing for some
reason. Is that reason still valid? Because it would be very nice if
we didn't
2011/12/13 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu:
On 12/13/11 7:06 AM, gra...@percival-music.ca gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
Second draft uploaded; more robust with rebases instead of merge.
Question: the old docs want translators to avoid rebasing for some
reason. Is that reason still valid?
2011/12/14 Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com:
2011/12/13 Carl Sorensen c_soren...@byu.edu:
On 12/13/11 7:06 AM, gra...@percival-music.ca gra...@percival-music.ca
wrote:
Second draft uploaded; more robust with rebases instead of merge.
Question: the old docs want translators to avoid
Reviewers: ,
Message:
CG now has N+1 different introductory explanations of git, where N is at
least 3. But given the lack of familiarity with branches that I see in
our development community, and the new staging stuff, I think this one
is good.
Once it's been accepted (in whatever form), I'll
Looks fine, except for a couple `git merge` commands where I suggest
other things.
The closest analogue to applying patch files is not `git merge` but
rather `git cherry-pick`.
But that is not so useful as the analogue of creating a series of one or
more patch files, and applying them in
11 matches
Mail list logo
