Hi,
John Johansen:
> So I am not a fan of the merge commit, it creates a messier history and
> can break bisecting, especially where its an interaction between certain
> patches you are looking for not just a single breaking commit.
> But I can live with it, with some provisos.
> The person who
On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 12:34:42PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> Steve Beattie:
> > As agreed upon in the last meeting, I've converted the apparmor bzr
> > branches to a git repository. I have also pushed that repository and the
> > apparmor-profiles git repository to the apparmor project on gitlib.
>
Steve Beattie:
> As agreed upon in the last meeting, I've converted the apparmor bzr
> branches to a git repository. I have also pushed that repository and the
> apparmor-profiles git repository to the apparmor project on gitlib.
Excellent, thanks!
> I did set up launchpad to mirror the gitlab
On 11/02/2017 02:19 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 04:08 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 11/02/2017 01:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2017 03:00 PM, John Johansen wrote:
]
> We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request:
>
>
On 11/02/2017 04:08 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 01:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>> On 11/02/2017 03:00 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>> ]
We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request:
https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/merge_requests/1
The audit
On 11/02/2017 01:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 03:00 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>> ]
>>> We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request:
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/merge_requests/1
>>>
>>> The audit trail of who merged the code is implicitly present in
On 11/02/2017 03:00 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> ]
>> We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request:
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/merge_requests/1
>>
>> The audit trail of who merged the code is implicitly present in the
>> merge commit. By default, there's no
]
> We walked through a merge yesterday with this merge request:
>
> https://gitlab.com/apparmor/apparmor/merge_requests/1
>
> The audit trail of who merged the code is implicitly present in the
> merge commit. By default, there's no information about who reviewed the
> changes but the merge
On 11/02/2017 02:07 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 21:46:17 CET schrieb Tyler Hicks:
>> On 11/01/2017 02:41 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
>
>>> Another question is if we want to continue sending patches to the
>>> mailinglist, or if we'll switch over to using
Hello,
Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 21:46:17 CET schrieb Tyler Hicks:
> On 11/01/2017 02:41 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> > Another question is if we want to continue sending patches to the
> > mailinglist, or if we'll switch over to using branches (prefixed
> > with the username, for example
On 11/01/2017 06:36 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 06:34 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>>> What the maintainer did for the GitHub contribution that I mentioned
>>> above was to merge my pull request into a local branch, interactive
On 11/01/2017 06:34 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>> What the maintainer did for the GitHub contribution that I mentioned
>> above was to merge my pull request into a local branch, interactive
>> rebase to add his Signed-off-by, and then push
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> What the maintainer did for the GitHub contribution that I mentioned
> above was to merge my pull request into a local branch, interactive
> rebase to add his Signed-off-by, and then push the resulting branch to
> to the master branch
On 11/01/2017 05:18 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 08:27:12 CET schrieb Steve Beattie:
There more work to do to flesh out the above and standardize on some
practices around git, but this should
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 03:46:17PM -0500, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 08:27:12 CET schrieb Steve Beattie:
> >> There more work to do to flesh out the above and standardize on some
> >> practices around git, but this should let us make progress.
> >
> > One thing we use
On 11/01/2017 12:27 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As agreed upon in the last meeting, I've converted the apparmor bzr
> branches to a git repository. I have also pushed that repository and the
> apparmor-profiles git repository to the apparmor project on gitlib.
>
> The gitlab project:
>
>
On 11/01/2017 02:41 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thanks for doing the migration!
>
> Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 08:27:12 CET schrieb Steve Beattie:
>> There more work to do to flesh out the above and standardize on some
>> practices around git, but this should let us make
Hello,
thanks for doing the migration!
Am Mittwoch, 1. November 2017, 08:27:12 CET schrieb Steve Beattie:
> There more work to do to flesh out the above and standardize on some
> practices around git, but this should let us make progress.
One thing we use for the openSUSE infrastructure salt
Hi,
As agreed upon in the last meeting, I've converted the apparmor bzr
branches to a git repository. I have also pushed that repository and the
apparmor-profiles git repository to the apparmor project on gitlib.
The gitlab project:
https://gitlab.com/apparmor
The apparmor userspace project:
19 matches
Mail list logo
