On 2013-10-06 23:47, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Yeah, you can delete the remote branch after merging to master.
>
> The trick here is that we don't send emails about commits in dev
> branches
> and we don't send emails about commits that were merged into master
> from a
> dev branch (that is, commits
Yeah, you can delete the remote branch after merging to master.
The trick here is that we don't send emails about commits in dev branches
and we don't send emails about commits that were merged into master from a
dev branch (that is, commits that have already existed in the repo at the
time of the
But that will create a remote branch which is not needed for others.
Or I can delete the remote branch after merging to master. Is that ok?
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Well. There's a way to avoid that: If you push to a remote branch before
>
Well. There's a way to avoid that: If you push to a remote branch before
merging, there will be no tsunami. A mail will only be sent to the merge
commit.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Juyung Seo wrote:
> I thought the same as David Seikel :)
> That's why the commit tsunami happened.
>
>
*about the merge commit.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Well. There's a way to avoid that: If you push to a remote branch before
> merging, there will be no tsunami. A mail will only be sent to the merge
> commit.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Juyung Seo wro
I thought the same as David Seikel :)
That's why the commit tsunami happened.
Anyhow, it's same as before except we now allow merge commit for some cases.
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> No. The point is not to squash them, but have one cover-lette
Exactly. Awesome. :)
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Daniel Juyung Seo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Tom Hacohen >wrote:
>
> > On 04/10/13 15:40, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> > > On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:46 +0100
> > > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohe
No. The point is not to squash them, but have one cover-letter commit that
holds them all. If you "git log --first-parent" you won't see all the
commits, just the merge commit that describes the whole changeset.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 10:36 AM, David Seikel wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 17:58:17
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 17:58:17 +0900 Daniel Juyung Seo
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
>
> > On 04/10/13 15:40, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> > > On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:46 +0100
> > > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > >>> He
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 04/10/13 15:40, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:46 +0100
> > Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >>> Hey guys,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow wil
On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 11:54:46 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:57:52 -0300 Lucas De Marchi
> said:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Carsten Haitzler
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:42:35 +0200 Bertrand Jacquin
> > > said:
> > >
> > >> > steps 3,
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:57:52 -0300 Lucas De Marchi
said:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:42:35 +0200 Bertrand Jacquin
> > said:
> >
> >> > steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 8... are an incantation. to be done in that order.
> >> > there is
> >> > --no-ff... a
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:42:35 +0200 Bertrand Jacquin said:
>
>> > steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 8... are an incantation. to be done in that order.
>> > there is
>> > --no-ff... and he series.. its a DEFINITE incantation. read up on git
>> > as a
>> > l
On Friday 04 October 2013 15:59, Tom Hacohen wrote :
> On 04/10/13 16:05, Jérémy Zurcher wrote:
> > On Friday 04 October 2013 15:18, Tom Hacohen wrote :
> >>>
> >>
> >> So, is this a "go"? May I write up some documentation about it and start
> >> doing it?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom.
> >
> > for me it
On 04/10/13 16:05, Jérémy Zurcher wrote:
> On Friday 04 October 2013 15:18, Tom Hacohen wrote :
>>>
>>
>> So, is this a "go"? May I write up some documentation about it and start
>> doing it?
>>
>> --
>> Tom.
>
> for me it's a +1 go
>
> in case that's part of your plan,
> I've added an 'eo2: ' pre
On Friday 04 October 2013 15:18, Tom Hacohen wrote :
> >
>
> So, is this a "go"? May I write up some documentation about it and start
> doing it?
>
> --
> Tom.
for me it's a +1 go
in case that's part of your plan,
I've added an 'eo2: ' prefix to the commits in devs/jeyzu/eo2-old.
I can still
On 04/10/13 15:40, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:46 +0100
> Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
>> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
>>> mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the curren
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:18:46 +0100
Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
> > mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit to
> > master" approach.
> >
> > At the mom
On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
> mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit to
> master" approach.
>
> At the moment we do not allow merges, at all. This was to prevent people
> from li
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:42:35 +0200 Bertrand Jacquin said:
> > steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 8... are an incantation. to be done in that order.
> > there is
> > --no-ff... and he series.. its a DEFINITE incantation. read up on git
> > as a
> > leaky abstraction. it is very much one. it forces peole to learn
> steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 8... are an incantation. to be done in that order.
> there is
> --no-ff... and he series.. its a DEFINITE incantation. read up on git
> as a
> leaky abstraction. it is very much one. it forces peole to learn a
> series of
> incantations/steps all the time as opposed to just h
On 03/10/13 03:55, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:20:38 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
>
>> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
>>> mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to t
On 03/10/13 08:48, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Daniel Juyung Seo [mailto:seojuyu...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: den 3 oktober 2013 06:55
>> To: Enlightenment developer list
>> Subject: Re: [E-devel] Git, merges, and better work-flows
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Juyung Seo [mailto:seojuyu...@gmail.com]
> Sent: den 3 oktober 2013 06:55
> To: Enlightenment developer list
> Subject: Re: [E-devel] Git, merges, and better work-flows
>
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Tom Hacohen
> wrote:
Thanks Tasn for the suggestion.
I like the idea.
It's been a while since we started "Rebase instead of Merge" policy and it
worked well so far.
Now it's time to enhance it more.
Thanks.
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I would like t
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
> > mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit to
> > master" approach.
> >
> > At the moment
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:10:17 -0300 Lucas De Marchi
> said:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Carsten Haitzler
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:20:38 +0100 Tom Hacohen
>> > said:
>> >
>> >> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 00:10:17 -0300 Lucas De Marchi
said:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Carsten Haitzler
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:20:38 +0100 Tom Hacohen
> > said:
> >
> >> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> >> > Hey guys,
> >> >
> >> > I would like to suggest a new work-flow
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:20:38 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
>
>> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
>> > mandatory, but just an allowed alternative t
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:20:38 +0100 Tom Hacohen said:
> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
> > mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit to
> > master" approach.
> >
> > At the mome
* Tom Hacohen [2013-10-02 17:58:45 +0100]:
> On 02/10/13 17:51, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> > -0 I'm not convinced but I don't have any evidence that it's bad, just
> > a personal feeling.
> >
> > However I'm not an active committer, so I don't count much these days
> > and I'll follow what
On 02/10/13 18:12, Adrien Nader wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> -0 I'm not convinced but I don't have any evidence that it's bad, just
>> a personal feeling.
>
> All it does is add a commit that says "branch X was merged in branch Y".
> There are two possib
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> -0 I'm not convinced but I don't have any evidence that it's bad, just
> a personal feeling.
All it does is add a commit that says "branch X was merged in branch Y".
There are two possible drawbacks:
- commit message should be checked to
On 02/10/13 17:51, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> -0 I'm not convinced but I don't have any evidence that it's bad, just
> a personal feeling.
>
> However I'm not an active committer, so I don't count much these days
> and I'll follow whatever you choose.
All I'm asking is the permission to do
-0 I'm not convinced but I don't have any evidence that it's bad, just
a personal feeling.
However I'm not an active committer, so I don't count much these days
and I'll follow whatever you choose.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>> Hey
On 02/10/13 16:17, Tom Hacohen wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
> mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit to
> master" approach.
>
> At the moment we do not allow merges, at all. This was to prevent people
> from li
Hey guys,
I would like to suggest a new work-flow. This work-flow will not be
mandatory, but just an allowed alternative to the current "commit to
master" approach.
At the moment we do not allow merges, at all. This was to prevent people
from littering the log with their inability to rebase (g
37 matches
Mail list logo
