On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
>> When you say "I almost never want to review individual commits and
>> instead want to review the changeset as a single diff," I'm confused
>> because a commit is a changeset (in Mercu
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 8:41 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> >> To answer the original question, though, at this time we have no plans
> >> to completely do away with the squashed-commit view. However, in
On 2016-04-04 8:41 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
>> To answer the original question, though, at this time we have no plans
>> to completely do away with the squashed-commit view. However, in the
>> interests of ensuring that the commits that will land
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Mark Côté wrote:
> On 2016-04-04 10:07 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM, L. David Baron
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >>> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a l
On 2016-04-04 10:07 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
>>> commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the lik
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 10:33, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
>> I should clarify that by "non-mq", I really mean using mutable-history
>> aka evolve. And yes, my workflow does depend on some extensions,
>> including some local stuff that I haven't
On 04/04/2016 10:33 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
I should clarify that by "non-mq", I really mean using mutable-history
aka evolve. And yes, my workflow does depend on some extensions,
including some local stuff that I haven't cleaned up enough to
> On Apr 3, 2016, at 18:09, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
>> commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
>> 2. When it works, I push the code up to the re
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Steve Fink wrote:
> I should clarify that by "non-mq", I really mean using mutable-history
> aka evolve. And yes, my workflow does depend on some extensions,
> including some local stuff that I haven't cleaned up enough to publish.
> (As does my mq workflow; I h
On 04/03/2016 06:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
2. When it works, I push the code up to the review system for rev
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> > commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> > 2. When it works, I push the code up to the
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> > commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> > 2. When it works, I push the code up to the
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016, at 09:09 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> > commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> > 2. When it works, I push the code up to the
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> Eric Rescorla writes:
>
> > I don't believe I am asking for this, just auto-squash on submit. I
> > certainly understand if it's your position that you have higher
> priorities,
> > that's fine, but it's not fine to remove the ability to do
On Saturday 2016-04-02 18:51 -0300, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 1. I write a bunch of code, committing along the way, so I have a lot of
> commits named "Checkpoint" and "Fix bug" and the like.
> 2. When it works, I push the code up to the review system for review.
> 3. In response to review comments, I
Eric Rescorla writes:
> I don't believe I am asking for this, just auto-squash on submit. I
> certainly understand if it's your position that you have higher priorities,
> that's fine, but it's not fine to remove the ability to do squashed reviews
> before something like that lands.
Perhaps the d
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> When you say "I almost never want to review individual commits and instead
> want to review the changeset as a single diff," I'm confused because a
> commit is a changeset (in Mercurial terms at least) and this statement is
> contradictory. Y
On 02/04/16 21:59, Gregory Szorc wrote:
When you say "I almost never want to review individual commits and instead
want to review the changeset as a single diff," I'm confused because a
commit is a changeset (in Mercurial terms at least) and this statement is
contradictory. You seem to be saying
When you say "I almost never want to review individual commits and instead
want to review the changeset as a single diff," I'm confused because a
commit is a changeset (in Mercurial terms at least) and this statement is
contradictory. You seem to be saying that you want to look at a series of
chang
"This is a squashed review request, containing the sum of all commits in
the series. It is intended only to provide an overview of a series of
commits. At the moment, you *can*leave review comments here, which will be
mirrored to Bugzilla, but they will not affect the review status of
individual co
20 matches
Mail list logo
