Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of
moving to another machine and I don't want that commit to show up in
the main repository? Is that possible? (My tree is currently in that
state; it is one commit ahead of plt/master but that commit message is
a lie-- I've just
Can I do that once I've pushed to robby/plt? What happens to other
machines that have unsquashed versions of those commits?
Robby
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Jay McCarthy jay.mccar...@gmail.com wrote:
I like to do an interactive rebase and squash commits together:
git rebase -i HEAD^^10
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of
moving to another machine and I don't want that commit to show up in
the main repository? Is that possible? (My tree is currently in that
That's what the force option for a rebasing fetch is for, to accept
overwriting the history on the machine. [For example, on Matthew's gr2
branch, he would regularly do this.]
Jay
2011/1/7 Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu:
Can I do that once I've pushed to robby/plt? What happens to
I like to do an interactive rebase and squash commits together:
git rebase -i HEAD^^10
where 10 is how many commits ahead of the master I am
Jay
2011/1/7 Robby Findler ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu:
Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of
moving to another machine
I think what I get from you and Jay is that it is possible to do, but
I guess I'm not completely clear on one particular usecase how it
would play out. (I understand that history rewriting is not allowed on
plt/master and that makes a lot of sense, etc.)
Lets say that, on my laptop I make 7
Okay, I tried an example of this and I'm getting stuck. I did one
commit and pushed on my laptop. On the desktop, I did another commit
and then I used an interactive rebase to swap the order of the
commits. Then, I did a push --force, which I think I understand and I
think worked.
Then, on the
My answers are:
1. There isn't, but I've been planning to do this as soon as I revisit
define-struct/contract in the new chaperone/impersonator world.
2. It's doable, but hasn't been done yet. I'll try and keep this in mind when
I revisit the things listed in 1. If I were to do it, I'd
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the commits
back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards but I would
rather just have my state be like the server's was.
Then don't do git pull. That not only updates your
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the commits
back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards but I would
rather just have my state be like the server's
On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of
moving to another machine and I don't want that commit to show up in
the main repository? Is that possible? (My tree is currently in that
state; it is one commit ahead of
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 1:39 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 7:42 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of
moving to another machine and I don't want that commit to show up in
the main repository? Is
At Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:39:33 -0800,
John Clements wrote:
Taking a step back: is there really anything wrong with such commits? Given
that drdr and e-mail alerts are based on pushes rather than commits, it seems
not unreasonable to just let those be intermediate commits. I can see that
Currently, you can't run the mongodb tests in DrRacket, because they use
subprocess with (current-output-port), which (in DrRacket) is not a
file-stream port.
In DrRacket's interactions window:
(file-stream-port? (current-output-port))
#f
Is this expected, or should DrRacket's
Yesterday, Carl Eastlund wrote:
First do a git fetch remote-name for that remote, or just git
remote update which fetches from all your remotes. Then git reset
--hard remote-name/master will clobber whatever you have and
replace it with the remote's master branch.
Note that this changes
Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
So I did this (git means git.racket-lang.org in my ssh setup as
I did things that way before Eli's recommendation changed)
git clone git:robby/plt
git remote add plt git:plt
It might be more convenient to flip it -- clone git:plt first, and
then add a
On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
So I did this (git means git.racket-lang.org in my ssh setup as
I did things that way before Eli's recommendation changed)
git clone git:robby/plt
git remote add plt git:plt
It might be more convenient to
Yesterday, Carl Eastlund wrote:
What you want to do is run gitk and/or git log on origin/master,
which is where those 53 show up.
A useful bit here -- you can pass `--all' to gitk which will make it
show all branches and tags.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))
5 hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
Another question: what if I commit something just for the purpose of
moving to another machine and I don't want that commit to show up in
the main repository? Is that possible? (My tree is currently in that
state; it is one commit ahead of plt/master but that
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
5 minutes ago, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote:
So I did this (git means git.racket-lang.org in my ssh setup as
I did things that way before Eli's
Four hours ago, Stevie Strickland wrote:
On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
Then, on the laptop, I did a git pull, and I ended up with the
commits back in the original order and a merge commit afterwards
but I would rather just have my state be like the server's was.
Then
Four hours ago, Stevie Strickland wrote:
In general, this is why people say you really shouldn't train
yourself to do git pull automatically, because there's plenty of
places where you don't want that. I always do git remote
update/git merge ... separately because there's plenty of times
I don't think it is possible with our current port support to make a
port that goes into a text% and returns #t to that predicate (is it?).
Robby
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:36 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.org wrote:
Currently, you can't run the mongodb tests in DrRacket, because they
Two hours ago, John Clements wrote:
Taking a step back: is there really anything wrong with such
commits?
What Robby and Vincent generalizes too -- merging can be confusing
sometimes, either to the author or to the others; and there are a
bunch of tools that become less useful if the history
An hour and a half ago, John Clements wrote:
Currently, you can't run the mongodb tests in DrRacket, because they
use subprocess with (current-output-port), which (in DrRacket) is
not a file-stream port.
So they should switch to `process' which does the necessary gluing.
(One thing I don't
I'm surprised no one has linked this all-clarifying blog post :)
http://tartley.com/?p=1267
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Eli Barzilay e...@barzilay.org wrote:
Two hours ago, John Clements wrote:
Taking a step back: is there really anything wrong with such
commits?
What Robby and
I've recently prepared an extension to the contract system based on
some work that Cormac Flanagan and I did.
The code is available at:
https://github.com/jeapostrophe/exp/tree/master/temporal-ctcs
The documentation is available at:
http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay/tmp/20110107-tempc/temp-c
27 matches
Mail list logo
