Hi Uwe,
2016-09-18 15:51 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>
>> 2016-09-17 19:15 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>
>> The history of a repository is valuable, but flooding it with many
> nitpicking
>
> After pulling git --log tells me
>
> commit 3654a620e1d90d48b57c9fc212abd1833e816995
> Author: Uwe
> Date:
> 2016-09-17 19:15 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
> The history of a repository is valuable, but flooding it with many
nitpicking
After pulling git --log tells me
commit 3654a620e1d90d48b57c9fc212abd1833e816995
Author: Uwe
Date: Sat Sep 17 16:27:10 2016 +
What's with my family name? Don'
> Uwe Brauer writes:
> I guess there's a better way than to clone the repository again. See
> for example:
>
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1725607/can-i-squash-commits-in-mercurial
Yes I know that. It is just rebasing makes me feel uneasy.
> Indeed, I just verified that
Uwe Brauer writes:
> Ok, one last question then. I have found the equivalent hg command for
> that procedure but before sending that patch I would like to check it
> with git on my local git clone of auctex.
>
> Here is what I have done so far.
>
> I generated my patch (I meant to one with variou
> Uwe Brauer writes:
> I guess Mosè does like me. Say in your experimental branch you develop
> a new feature. Instead of merging that branch with master (which just
> follows origin/master without changes), we do
> $ git rebase master
> and as a result, our 20 new, unpub
Uwe Brauer writes:
>> 2016-09-17 19:15 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>
>> The history of a repository is valuable, but flooding it with many
>> oneliner changes makes it somewhat less useful. I sometimes do this
>> with my personal and private projects, but if the code has to be seen
>
> 2016-09-17 19:15 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
> The history of a repository is valuable, but flooding it with many
> oneliner changes makes it somewhat less useful. I sometimes do this
> with my personal and private projects, but if the code has to be seen
> by other people these micr
2016-09-17 19:15 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
"Mosè" == Mosè Giordano writes:
>
>> 2016-09-17 18:41 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>>> but what is with the issue of sending patches with
>>> correspond to my private branches but might include (for you) unwanted
>>> revsets? That is not accep
>>> "Mosè" == Mosè Giordano writes:
> 2016-09-17 18:41 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>> but what is with the issue of sending patches with
>> correspond to my private branches but might include (for you) unwanted
>> revsets? That is not acceptable? I should collapse them?
> What do you r
2016-09-17 18:41 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
> but what is with the issue of sending patches with
> correspond to my private branches but might include (for you) unwanted
> revsets? That is not acceptable? I should collapse them?
What do you refer to?
> [1] I see hg facing the same fate as Xemacs, be
> Hi Uwe,
> 2016-09-17 18:28 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
> Great, thank you! But please note that I had to fix a type to one of
> the options of the package (it was "rldocuement" instead of
> "rldocument").
Oh no! I swore to god I have corrected that typo, must be in some other
branch
Hi Uwe,
2016-09-17 18:28 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>
>> Please, don't spawn a new thread just to provide a new revised patch,
>> just reply to my email. I'd like to review other patches you lately
>> submitted, but I've to navigate between all the threads you opened to
>> discover wh
> 2016-09-17 18:14 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
> Did you take a look to the file you sent?
Usually I do, but since I had so many problems with that format, it
might have escaped that check.
> [...]
> diff --git a/export.patch b/export.patch
> new file mode 100644
> --- /dev/null
> Please, don't spawn a new thread just to provide a new revised patch,
> just reply to my email. I'd like to review other patches you lately
> submitted, but I've to navigate between all the threads you opened to
> discover which one has the latest version of a specific patch.
New p
2016-09-17 18:14 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>> In addition, the patch installs two useless files, please pay more
>> attention when you submit patches.
>
> What useless files? could you please clarify?
Did you take a look to the file you sent?
--8<---cut here---start--
> Hi Uwe,
> 2016-09-09 10:39 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
> The commit message doesn't have the standard ChangeLog-like format.
Sigh, again, this happened with the prettifying patch I sent. It seems
that there is a problem with the git-hg plugin.
> In addition, the patch installs two usel
Hi Uwe,
2016-09-09 10:39 GMT+02:00 Uwe Brauer :
>
> Hi
>
> I hope you can apply that patch
The commit message doesn't have the standard ChangeLog-like format.
In addition, the patch installs two useless files, please pay more
attention when you submit patches.
Since the package requires XeTeX en
17 matches
Mail list logo
