On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > - Don't merge upstream code at random points.
> >
> >You should _never_ pull my tree at random points (this was my biggest
> >issue with early git users - many developers would just pull my current
> >random tree-of-the-day into th
>
> I want clean history, but that really means (a) clean and (b) history.
>
> People can (and probably should) rebase their _private_ trees (their own
> work). That's a _cleanup_. But never other peoples code. That's a "destroy
> history"
>
> So the history part is fairly easy. There's only o
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> My plans from now on are just to send you non-linear trees, whenever I
> merge a patch into my next tree thats when it stays in there, I'll pull
> Eric's tree directly into my tree and then I'll send the results, I
> thought we cared about a clean me
> > This branch has a merge in it, due to conflicts with the Intel drm tree
> > you already pulled. I've asked Eric to not send you direct pulls, he
> > mentioned you said he should, but it really screws over my tree. I don't
> > mind direct pulls outside the merge window as it usually smaller
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> This branch has a merge in it, due to conflicts with the Intel drm tree
> you already pulled. I've asked Eric to not send you direct pulls, he
> mentioned you said he should, but it really screws over my tree. I don't
> mind direct pulls outside the
