Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Jay McCarthy
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Jay McCarthy
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] struct contracts

2011-01-07 Thread Stevie Strickland
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Stevie Strickland
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Stevie Strickland
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread John Clements
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Vincent St-Amour
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

[racket-dev] Can't use (current-output-port) with subprocess in DrRacket: does it matter?

2011-01-07 Thread John Clements
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
[Pre-apologies for sending multiple messages, this thread is way too big to combine replies.] Yesterday, Robby Findler wrote: Thanks, Carl. I have tried that route in the past and I found that I let robby/plt get too far out of sync with the tree. So I'm looking for a workflow where, perhaps,

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Stevie Strickland
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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 recommendation changed) git clone git:robby/plt git remote

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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)))

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Can't use (current-output-port) with subprocess in DrRacket: does it matter?

2011-01-07 Thread Robby Findler
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Can't use (current-output-port) with subprocess in DrRacket: does it matter?

2011-01-07 Thread Eli Barzilay
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

Re: [racket-dev] Git

2011-01-07 Thread Stephen Chang
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

[racket-dev] Temporal Contracts and Match Automata

2011-01-07 Thread Jay McCarthy
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